technology transfer workshop forensic lmd research studies at rosalind franklin university of...
TRANSCRIPT
Technology Transfer Workshop
Forensic LMD Research Studies at Rosalind Franklin University of
Medicine and ScienceNorth Chicago, IL
Christine T. Sanders
Technology Transfer Workshop
How did this start?
• 2003 - Sanders investigates the applicability of LMD for forensic use as a thesis topic
• Jan 2004 - Sanders and Peterson at RFUMS write NIJ grant proposal to investigate LMD technology for separation of sperm from mixtures.
• Feb 2004 - AAFS presentation of preliminary data• June 2004 - Awarded two year grant #2004-DN-BX-K215• Several presentations made throughout the grant period• Published paper in July 2006, JFS• July/Aug. 2007 - NFSTC Technology Transfer Workshop
• Second manuscript in progress
Technology Transfer Workshop
Separation Methods
• Preferential Lysis (differential extraction)
• Flow Cytometry
• Microchip separation
• Membrane Filtration
• Magnetic Antibodies
• Y- chromosome (non-physical separation)
Laser Microdissection
Technology Transfer Workshop
Studies for LMD Development• Histological staining study
• DNA isolation study
• Yield Evaluation qPCR
• Mixture separation study
• Low Copy Number study (LCN)
• Comparative study
• Case Study
Technology Transfer Workshop
Technical Obstacles• Optimizing LMD cutting parameters
• LMD microscope slides
• Environmental conditions of instrument
• “hanging chads”
• Static
• Collection buffer
• Etc…
Technology Transfer Workshop
Histological Staining for LMD
Not StainedE-CellsSperm
63x 40xHistological staining study considerations:
–Visually discriminate sperm and epithelial cells–Effect on downstream analysis
Technology Transfer Workshop
Histological Staining Part 1
Stains tested:
• Hematoxylin / Eosin (H&E)
• Christmas Tree stain (nuclear fast red / picroindigocarmine)
• Acridine Orange
• Wright Stain (azure blue / eosin)
• Methyl Green
Evaluation:
•Stains were evaluated for ability to ID sperm
•LMD collected cells were isolated with Qiagen QIAamp
extraction
•STR/Profiler Plus analysis performed
Technology Transfer Workshop
AcridineOrange
Not Stained
Christmas Tree
Hematoxylin/Eosin
Technology Transfer WorkshopMicroscopic ID scores of sperm & epithelial cells
Histological Stain Sample UNSTN H&E CTS MG WRT AO
Spermatozoa 1 + / - + + - - - + 2 + / - + + + - - - + 3 + / - + + + - - - +
Buccal Cells 1 + / - + + + - - - + / - 2 - + + + - - - - 3 + / - + + + - - - - +
UNSTN = not stained. H&E = hematoxylin/eosin. CTS = nuclear fast red/picroindigocarmine. MG = methyl green. WRT = Wright's stain. AO = acridine orange.
- - : cannot ID or highly challenging- : poor+ / - : satisfactory+ : good+ + : excellent
Technology Transfer Workshop
RFU Levels of Stained Cells
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1Pe
rce
nt
RF
Us
No
rma
lize
d
to U
ns
tain
ed
Sa
mp
les
H&ECTS
62% 43%
Stained specimens exhibited RFU values significantly lower than unstained specimens (P < 0.01)
Technology Transfer Workshop
• Methyl green, Wright’s stain not suitable for LMD
• Cells stained with Acridine orange resulted in no amplified product
• Christmas tree stain & Hematoxylin/Eosin: – Good stains for sperm ID. – Significantly lower RFU values than unstained control– However, genotyping could still be obtained with 300
sperm cells or 150 E-cells– H&E best choice
Part I: Histology Study Summary
Results prompted second phase of histology study (Part II)
Technology Transfer Workshop
Part II: Histology StudyStains Tested:• H&E Modified - shorter exposure times• Nuclear Fast Red - nuclear dye• SYBR 14/Propidium Iodine - fluorescent duel stain• PSA/PI - fluorescein-conjugated Pisum sativum agglutinin
(FITC-PSA) & propidium iodide
Evaluation:
• Stains were evaluated for ability to ID sperm
• LMD collected cells were isolated with Lyse-N-Go
extraction
• STR/Profiler Plus analysis performed
Technology Transfer Workshop
RFU Differences: Stained vs. Unstained LMD Cells
Technology Transfer Workshop
Part II: Histology Study Summary
• SYBR 14/Propidium Iodine
– No STR results could be obtained - not suitable for DNA analysis. PI tests indicate SYBR 14 as the problem agent.
• H&E Modified and Nuclear Fast Red
– Good stains for sperm ID. – No significant difference in RFUs obtained from that of unstained
controls
• PSA-FITC/PI– Good duel stain but staining consistency difficult to control
between samples. STR genotypes can be obtained from PSA-FITC stained cells. (more optimization required)
Technology Transfer Workshop
PSA-FITC/PI stain on a PEN slide
Technology Transfer Workshop
• Lyse-N-Go : commercial lysis buffer (low manipulation)
Series of heating and cooling incubations 8C-97C
• Microlysis: commercial lysis buffer (low manipulation)
Series of 65C and 96C incubations• Qiagen QIAamp: commercial kit
DNA binding membrane columns• Chelex
DTT (dithiothreitol) added to all three protocols
DNA isolation study considerations:–Low manipulation, Small volume, Purity
DNA Isolation Study
Technology Transfer WorkshopDetection of Loci Using
Three Isolation Methods
Technology Transfer Workshop
Total PCR Product Detected
*
Technology Transfer Workshop
DNA Isolation Study Summary
• MicroLYSIS method was not suitable for LMD with forensic STR analysis
• QIAamp performed best for collection of stained epithelial cells
• Both Lyse-N-Go and QIAamp performed well for isolating DNA from LMD collected sperm cells – Lyse-N-Go provides a low manipulation method and
inexpensive– QIAamp provides a cleaner DNA extract but higher
manipulation required and higher cost.
Technology Transfer Workshop
DNA Yield Study• LMD process may provide an estimate of DNA
quantity.
• Efficiency of DNA extraction process must be considered
• Two methods of DNA quantification performed from LMD collected cells extracted with the Qiagen QIAamp® protocol– Real-Time qPCR– Relative amounts of STR PCR product to a
standard curve
Technology Transfer Workshop
Sample % Yield
by real-time qPCR
% Yield
by STR RFUs
300 sperm (n=5) 22.9 + 4.8 % Off scale
150 sperm (n=5) 13.3 + 2.3 % Off std curve
80 sperm (n=5) 16.3 + 5.4 % 25.1 + 6.6%
40 sperm (n=5) 18.5 + 3.8 % 22.0 + 5.6%
20 sperm (n=5) 12.2 + 4.7 % 20.1 + 7.8%
10 sperm (n=5) 14.8 + 0.8 % 23.6 + 6.6%
5 sperm (n=4) 17.8 + 2.9 % Off std curve
AB Pos control
0.0313 -1ng
13.0 + 2.0 %
(n=6)
27.5 + 4.7%
(n=5)
Yield of DNA Extraction (sperm)
Technology Transfer Workshop
Sample % Yield by real-time qPCR
150 epithelial (n=5) 37.5 + 2.8 %
80 epithelial (n=5) 45.4 + 6.8 %
40 epithelial (n=5) 37.5 + 4.2 %
20 epithelial (n=5) 40.5 + 7.0 %
10 epithelial (n=5) 32.9 + 5.3 %
5 epithelial (n=5) 41.4 + 8.6 %
2 epithelial (n=5) 40.7 + 11.0 %
Yield of DNA Extraction (e-cells)
Technology Transfer Workshop
DNA Yield Study: Summary
• Extraction efficiency surprisingly low but consistent
• Cells can easily be counted during LMD collection, starting DNA material calculated, and then final DNA quantity can be estimated factoring in extraction efficiency prior to PCR
• Laborious and sample consuming DNA quantification step can be eliminated when using LMD.
Technology Transfer Workshop
Mixture Study
• Mixtures were prepared with the equivalent of half a female oral cotton swab + 1µl of semen.
• Collection amounts of 75, 150 and 300 sperm cells were recovered from the mixtures.
• PCR amplification was performed using standard 28 cycles
• Extended PCR was performed by amplifying half of the PCR product an additional 6 cycles
Technology Transfer Workshop** * *
* * * **
* *
**** *AmpFlSTR
Profiler Plus
DNA mixture:sperm cells + female epithelial cells (*)
Technology Transfer Workshop
300 Sperm cells
separated by LMD
Technology Transfer Workshop
“150 sperm cells” from a mixtureStandard PCR Extended PCR
Technology Transfer Workshop
“75 sperm cells” from a mixture
Standard PCR Extended PCR
Technology Transfer Workshop
Detection of Profiler Plus Alleles
• Under standard PCR conditions (28 cycles)– “75 sperm” 71+12% alleles
– “150 sperm” 96+3% alleles
– “300 sperm” 100% alleles
• Under “extended cycles” PCR (34 cycles)– “75 sperm” 100% alleles
– “150 sperm” 100% alleles
Technology Transfer Workshop
Allelic Balance
• Heterozygote peak height ratio: Height of the lower peak divided by the height of the higher peak, expressed as a percentage
• Under standard PCR conditions (28 cycles)– “75 sperm” 79.3+2.9%– “150 sperm” 81.8+4.3%– “300 sperm” 82.0+1.4%
• Under “extended cycles” PCR (34 cycles)– “75 sperm” 67.0+13.2%– “150 sperm” 85.2+6.7%
Technology Transfer Workshop
Summary: Mixture Study
• LMD separation of sperm cells from a epithelial cell mixture results in a single semen donor genotype
• The lower limit of detection using ABI user guide’s PCR protocol (standard conditions) is ~75-150 sperm cells.
• Extended cycle analysis can extend the lower limit of detection
Technology Transfer Workshop
LCN Study of Mixtures
• Prepared mixtures of human female oral swabs (epithelial cells) and male semen (sperm cells). Equivalent to 1 swab + 1µl of semen
• Collected 80, 40, 20, 10 and 5 sperm cells by laser microdissection
• Profiler Plus PCR amplification was performed using 34 & 38 cycles. (+6 & +10 cycles)
Technology Transfer Workshop“80 sperm cells” at 34 PCR cycles
Technology Transfer Workshop“40 sperm cells” at 34 PCR cycles
Technology Transfer Workshop
“20 sperm cells” at 34 cycles
Technology Transfer Workshop
“10 Sperm Cells” at 34 PCR Cycles
Technology Transfer Workshop
80
40
20
10
5
LMD Collected Cells from a Mixture (34 cycles)
Technology Transfer Workshop
Percent of Profiler Plus Profile Detected from LMD Collected Cells (34 cycles)
N=5 N=5
***
N=5N=5 N=5
Technology Transfer WorkshopPercent of Profiler Plus Profile Detected from LMD Collected Cells (34 & 38 Cycles)
Technology Transfer Workshop
Epithelial Cell Carryover : Outlier?
STR plots from LMD collected sperm cells with epithelial cell DNA carryover. Female donor alleles (indicated by asterisks) were detected in the 40 and 80 sperm cell collections from one of the slide smears in this study.
Technology Transfer Workshop
LCN Mixture Study Summary
• Minute numbers of sperm cells can be separated and recovered by LMD from epithelial cell mixtures.
• STR genotyping can be obtained with as little as 5 sperm cells captured by LMD using increased PCR cycles.
Technology Transfer Workshop
PCR mastermix added directlyto collection/extraction tube
Collected 20-30 sperm cells by LMDwith Lyse-N-Go Extraction
9µl smeared on PEN slide for LMD
Maximum volume of extractinput into PCR
qPCR DNA Quanification
Differential Extractionwith Organic Purification
25µl used for Preferential Lysis
Mixtures of sperm cells and female epithelial cells1:5, 1:10, 1:20, 1:40, 1:80 & 1:160 (SP:EC)
Comparative Study
AmpFlSTR Profiler Plus for 34 cycles
Technology Transfer Workshop
LMD PL
Plots of Sperm Fractions LMD vs. PL 1:5 Cell Mixture Ratio
Technology Transfer Workshop
LMD PL
Plots of Sperm Fractions LMD vs. PL 1:160 Cell Mixture Ratio
Technology Transfer WorkshopLMD vs. PL : Detection of Male Donor Genotype
Technology Transfer Workshop
LMD vs. PL : Female Carryover
Technology Transfer WorkshopComparison of PCR Product Quantity : LMD vs. PL of Sperm Fraction
* ** *
Technology Transfer Workshop
PCRCapillary Electrophoresis
Data Analysis
DNA Quantification 4 hrs.
DNA IsolationChelex: 70 min. or
Organic: 2 hrs.
Preferential Lysis Separation3- 4 hrs.
Microscopic ID
PCRCapillary Electrophoresis
Data Analysis (single source genotype)
DNA IsolationLyse-N-Go 20 min.
Microscopic IDLMD ~5 cells/min.
Sexual Assault Kit Swab:Elute Cells & Prepare Smear
Preferential Lysis Method
LMD Method
Work Flow Chart: Comparing Methods
Technology Transfer Workshop
Comparative Study Summary
• LMD provides improved separation and detection of sperm from epithelial cell DNA over the preferential lysis method at higher e-cell to sperm-cell ratios.
• LMD Does not require a DNA quantification step
• Single sample processing more rapid using LMD
Technology Transfer Workshop
Case Studies using Low Copy #• 4 case studies
– Non-probative or adjudicated cases– Originating crime lab performed organic differential
extraction and attempted typing of 13 core loci– Case “A” - public masturbation (tissue paper recovered
from the scene) – Cases “B”, “C” & “D” - sexual assaults (vaginal swabs
obtained)• Case “A” - ample sperm available
– 30 sperm collected by LMD followed by LCN analysis• Case “B”, “C” & “D” - Difficulty locating sperm and
limited sample available. – modified the LMD protocol to include a “mini-lysis”– 18-30 sperm collected by LMD followed by LCN analysis
Technology Transfer WorkshopLocus Case A sp
LMD Case A sp
original PL results
Case B sp LMD**
Case B sp original PL
results
Case B suspect
Case B victim
D3S1358 16, 17 16, 17 17 15, 16, 17 16, 17 15, 16 vWA 17 17 15, 18 15, 16, 18 15, 18 15, 16 FGA 21, 23 21, 23 19, 24 19, 22, 24 19, 24 22, 25
AMEL X, Y X, Y X, Y X, Y X, Y X D8S1179 12, 14 12, 14 10, 13 10, 13, 14 10, 13 14, 17 D21S11 28, 31 28, 31 30.2, 31 30, 30.2, 31 30.2, 31 30, 31.2 D18S51 18 18 15, 17 15, 16, 17 15, 17 16 D5S818 9, 12 9, 12 8, 12 8, 12, 13 8, 12 13 D13S317 11, 12 11, 12 12, 14 12, 14 12, 14 12 D7S820 8, 12 8, 12 9 8, 9, 10 9, 10 8, 12
Locus Case C sp
LMD** Case C sp
original PL results
Case C victim*
Case D sp LMD**
Case D sp original PL
results
Case D victim*
D3S1358 15 15 16 15 15, 16 15 vWA 16, 18 16, 18 16 18 16, 18 17, 18 FGA 24, 25 24 24
AMEL X, Y X, Y X X X, Y X D8S1179 13, 15 13, 15 10, 14 12 12, 13 12, 13 D21S11 28, 31.2 28 30, 31.2 32.2 28, 32.2 28, 30 D18S51 14, 16 13 D5S818 11, 12 11, 12 10, 11 10 10, 13 8, 11 D13S317 10, 13 9, 10 13 12, 13 8 D7S820 11, 12 10
* Partial profile of victim assumed from the epithelial cell fraction of vaginal swab ** LMD performed after “mini-PL” sp = sperm fraction
Technology Transfer WorkshopA Closer Look at Case B
Locus PL - Sperm Fraction
Male
Exemplar
10 Sperm LMD (LCN)
30 Sperm *LMD (LCN)
D3 15, 16, 17 16, 17 17 ***
VWA 15, 16, 18 15, 18 15 15, 18
FGA 19, 22, 24 19, 24 19, 24 19, 24
AMEL X , Y X, Y Y X, Y
D8 10, 13, 14 10, 13 13 10, 13
D21 30, 30.2, 31 30.2, 31 31 30.2, 31
D18 15, 16, 17 15, 17 17 15, 17
D5 8, 12, 13 8, 12 13** 8, 12
D13 12, 14 12, 14 12 12, 14
D7 8, 9, 10 9, 10 9 ***
Carryover from victim shown in red; Shared alleles underlined
Technology Transfer Workshop
Case Studies Summary• LMD’s performance
– Case “A” - similar result to PL– Case “B” & “C” - improved results – Case “D” - worse results
• This study may not be the best case study comparison test of LMD to the PL method due to other variations in the analysis (i.e. LCN vs. STD PCR, and “mini-lysis”)
• Larger case study population required in a forensic lab setting to make final evaluation of LMD
Technology Transfer Workshop
Research Team• RFUMS
– Christine T. Sanders– Daniel A. Peterson– Emily Reisenbigler
• LAPD– Nick Sanchez
• University of Central Florida– Jack Ballantyne
• Northern Illinois Regional Crime Lab– Kenneth Pfoser
Technology Transfer Workshop