Search

Aim A 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. Methods Eighteen 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. Results Although 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. Conclusion The 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.

About 30 years ago, Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys described the first deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)-profiling technique, and genetic profiling was soon implemented for immigration cases, paternity investigations and crime casework. Today, the methods have evolved from the original ‘DNA fingerprints’, to ‘DNA profiling’, which have been adopted as a standard procedure for human identification. New technological innovations, such as next-generation sequencing, continue to improve the methods to be more efficient, such as throughput. In the disaster victim identification (DVI) context, DNA profiling is one of the primary tools in the aftermath of massive catastrophes and an important part in the process in repatriation of victims to their relatives. The first time DNA profiling was effectively used in a DVI process, was in 1990 in the identification of the victims of the fire on the Norwegian ferry ‘Scandinavian Star’. Since then, DNA profiling has been a mainstay in DVI work, and in some situations the method has proven to be the only doable method for victim identification. Key Concepts: Genetic profiling is a primary tool for identification of disaster victims. A common ante-mortem (AM) sample is often samples collected from a close relative(s) of the missing person. Postmortem (PM) samples are appropriate tissue samples collected from the dead body or body part. Potential contamination should be minimised during all processes. AM samples and PM samples are analysed with the same genetic markers. STR markers are at present the most widely used markers for genetic profiling for DVI. A Bayesian approach regarding statistics (use of prior odds combined with genetic data) when evaluating associations between AM and PM genetic data, allows for an assessment of the strength of the alleged relationship in the identification process. Keywords: disaster victim identification; genetic profiling; FTA-cards; next-generation sequencing; short tandem repeats; single nucleotide polymorphism; autosomal markers; Y-chromosomal markers; X-chromosomal markers; mitochondrial mtDNA-markers; ante-mortem samples; postmortem samples

We have updated the Norwegian frequency database for 35 autosomal markers, as well as established databases from East Africa, East and Middle Asia. We have also investigated the adequate size of a database in order to obtain unbiased LRs. For markers with considerable variance, a database size of 500 or even 1000 individuals may be needed.