↓ Skip to main content

Differential DNA extraction of challenging simulated sexual-assault samples: a Swiss collaborative study

Overview of attention for article published in Investigative Genetics, May 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Differential DNA extraction of challenging simulated sexual-assault samples: a Swiss collaborative study
Published in
Investigative Genetics, May 2011
DOI 10.1186/2041-2223-2-11
Pubmed ID
Abstract

In sexual-assault cases, autosomal DNA analysis of gynecological swabs is a challenge, as the presence of a large quantity of female material may prevent detection of the male DNA. A solution to this problem is differential DNA extraction, but there is no established best practice for this. We decided to test the efficacy of a number of different protocols on simulated casework samples. Four difficult samples were sent to the nine Swiss laboratories active in forensic genetics. In each laboratory, staff used their routine protocols to separate the epithelial-cell fraction, enriched with the non-sperm DNA, from the sperm fraction. DNA extracts were then sent to the organizing laboratory for analysis. Estimates of male:female DNA ratio without differential DNA extraction ranged from 1:38 to 1:339, depending on the semen used to prepare the samples. After differential DNA extraction, most of the ratios ranged from 1:12 to 9:1, allowing detection of the male DNA. Compared with direct DNA extraction, cell separation resulted in losses of 94-98% of the male DNA. As expected, more male DNA was generally present in the sperm than in the epithelial-cell fraction. However, for about 30% of the samples, the reverse trend was seen. The recovery of male and female DNA was highly variable, depending on the laboratory involved. An experimental design similar to the one used in this study may be of assistance for local protocol testing and improvement.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hungary 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
New Zealand 1 1%
Denmark 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 69 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 25%
Student > Bachelor 11 15%
Researcher 11 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Other 8 11%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 7 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 44%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 25%
Chemistry 4 5%
Engineering 2 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 10 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 February 2015.
All research outputs
#3,970,216
of 4,741,769 outputs
Outputs from Investigative Genetics
#85
of 88 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,446
of 131,679 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Investigative Genetics
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,741,769 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 88 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 131,679 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.