Search

AimA collaborative exercise with several institutes was organized by the Forensic DNA Service (FDNAS) and the Institute of the Legal Medicine, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic, with the aim to test performance of different laboratories carrying out DNA analysis of relatively old bone samples. MethodsEighteen laboratories participating in the collaborative exercise were asked to perform DNA typing of two samples of bone powder. Two bone samples provided by the National Museum and the Institute of Archaelogy in Prague, Czech Republic, came from archeological excavations and were estimated to be approximately 150 and 400 years old. The methods of genetic characterization including autosomal, gonosomal, and mitochondrial markers was selected solely at the discretion of the participating laboratory. ResultsAlthough the participating laboratories used different extraction and amplification strategies, concordant results were obtained from the relatively intact 150 years old bone sample. Typing was more problematic with the analysis of the 400 years old bone sample due to poorer quality. ConclusionThe laboratories performing identification DNA analysis of bone and teeth samples should regularly test their ability to correctly perform DNA-based identification on bone samples containing degraded DNA and potential inhibitors and demonstrate that risk of contamination is minimized.

AimA collaborative exercise with several institutes was organized by the Forensic DNA Service (FDNAS) and the Institute of the Legal Medicine, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic, with the aim to test performance of different laboratories carrying out DNA analysis of relatively old bone samples. MethodsEighteen laboratories participating in the collaborative exercise were asked to perform DNA typing of two samples of bone powder. Two bone samples provided by the National Museum and the Institute of Archaelogy in Prague, Czech Republic, came from archeological excavations and were estimated to be approximately 150 and 400 years old. The methods of genetic characterization including autosomal, gonosomal, and mitochondrial markers was selected solely at the discretion of the participating laboratory. ResultsAlthough the participating laboratories used different extraction and amplification strategies, concordant results were obtained from the relatively intact 150 years old bone sample. Typing was more problematic with the analysis of the 400 years old bone sample due to poorer quality. ConclusionThe laboratories performing identification DNA analysis of bone and teeth samples should regularly test their ability to correctly perform DNA-based identification on bone samples containing degraded DNA and potential inhibitors and demonstrate that risk of contamination is minimized.