Display options
Cite
Grisedale KS, van Daal A. Comparison of STR profiling from low template DNA extracts with and without the consensus profiling method. Investig Genet. 2012;3(1):14doi: 10.1186/2041-2223-3-14.
Grisedale, K. S., & van Daal, A. (2012). Comparison of STR profiling from low template DNA extracts with and without the consensus profiling method. Investigative genetics, 3(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-2223-3-14
Grisedale, Kelly S, and van Daal, Angela. "Comparison of STR profiling from low template DNA extracts with and without the consensus profiling method." Investigative genetics vol. 3,1 (2012): 14. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-2223-3-14
Grisedale KS, van Daal A. Comparison of STR profiling from low template DNA extracts with and without the consensus profiling method. Investig Genet. 2012 Jul 02;3(1):14. doi: 10.1186/2041-2223-3-14. PMID: 22748106; PMCID: PMC3424158.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Investig Genet. 2012 Jul 02;3(1):14. doi: 10.1186/2041-2223-3-14.

Comparison of STR profiling from low template DNA extracts with and without the consensus profiling method.

Investigative genetics

Kelly S Grisedale, Angela van Daal

Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, QLD, 4229, Australia. [email protected].

PMID: 22748106 PMCID: PMC3424158 DOI: 10.1186/2041-2223-3-14

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The consensus profiling method was introduced to overcome the exaggerated stochastic effects associated with low copy number DNA typing. However, little empirical evidence has been provided which shows that a consensus profile, derived from dividing a sample into separate aliquots and including only alleles seen at least twice, gives the most informative profile, compared to a profile obtained by amplifying the entire low template DNA extract in one reaction. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the quality of consensus profiles compared to profiles obtained using the whole low template extract for amplification.

METHODS: A total of 100 pg and 25 pg DNA samples were amplified with the PowerPlex® ESI 16 Kits using 30 or 34 PCR cycles. A total of 100 pg and 25 pg DNA samples were then divided into three aliquots for a 34-cycle PCR and a consensus profile derived that included alleles that appeared in at least two of the replicates. Profiles from the non-split samples were compared to the consensus profiles focusing on peak heights, allele drop out, locus drop out and allele drop in.

RESULTS: Performing DNA profiling on non-split extracts produced profiles with a higher percentage of correct loci compared to the consensus profiling technique. Consensus profiling did eliminate any spurious alleles from the final profile. However, there was a notable increase in allele and locus drop out when a LTDNA sample was divided prior to amplification.

CONCLUSIONS: The loss of information that occurs when a sample is split for amplification indicates that consensus profiling may not be producing the most informative DNA profile for samples where the template amount is limited.

References

  1. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2011 Nov;5(5):436-48 - PubMed
  2. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2009 Sep;3(4):255-60 - PubMed
  3. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2008 Sep;2(4):318-28 - PubMed
  4. Biotechniques. 2007 Oct;43(4):ii-v - PubMed
  5. Croat Med J. 2009 Jun;50(3):250-67 - PubMed
  6. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2010 Oct;4(5):305-10 - PubMed
  7. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2011 Aug;5(4):316-28 - PubMed
  8. Nature. 1997 Oct 9;389(6651):555-6 - PubMed
  9. Croat Med J. 2009 Jun;50(3):207-17 - PubMed
  10. J Forensic Sci. 2002 Jan;47(1):66-96 - PubMed
  11. J Forensic Sci. 2004 Nov;49(6):1265-77 - PubMed
  12. J Forensic Sci. 2002 Jul;47(4):773-85 - PubMed
  13. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2012 May;6(3):317-21 - PubMed
  14. Forensic Sci Int. 2000 Aug 14;112(2-3):151-61 - PubMed
  15. J Forensic Sci. 2001 May;46(3):647-60 - PubMed
  16. Forensic Sci Int. 2000 Jul 24;112(1):17-40 - PubMed
  17. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2010 Jul;4(4):221-7 - PubMed

Publication Types