Isometric artifacts from polymerase chain reaction-massively parallel sequencing analysis of short tandem repeat loci: An emerging issue from a new technology?
DNA degradation
PCR artifacts
STR typing
massive parallel sequencing
Journal
Electrophoresis
ISSN: 1522-2683
Titre abrégé: Electrophoresis
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8204476
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2022
07 2022
Historique:
revised:
28
01
2022
received:
14
05
2021
accepted:
26
03
2022
pubmed:
1
4
2022
medline:
16
7
2022
entrez:
31
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The recent introduction of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-massively parallel sequencing (MPS) technologies in forensics has changed the approach to allelic short tandem repeat (STR) typing because sequencing cloned PCR fragments enables alleles with identical molecular weights to be distinguished based on their nucleotide sequences. Therefore, because PCR fidelity mainly depends on template integrity, new technical issues could arise in the interpretation of the results obtained from the degraded samples. In this work, a set of DNA samples degraded in vitro was used to investigate whether PCR-MPS could generate "isometric drop-ins" (IDIs; i.e., molecular products having the same length as the original allele but with a different nucleotide sequence within the repeated units). The Precision ID GlobalFiler NGS STR panel kit was used to analyze 0.5 and 1 ng of mock samples in duplicate tests (for a total of 16 PCR-MPS analyses). As expected, several well-known PCR artifacts (such as allelic dropout, stutters above the threshold) were scored; 95 IDIs with an average occurrence of 5.9 IDIs per test (min: 1, max: 11) were scored as well. In total, IDIs represented one of the most frequent artifacts. The coverage of these IDIs reached up to 981 reads (median: 239 reads), and the ratios with the coverage of the original allele ranged from 0.069 to 7.285 (median: 0.221). In addition, approximately 5.2% of the IDIs showed coverage higher than that of the original allele. Molecular analysis of these artifacts showed that they were generated in 96.8% of cases through a single nucleotide change event, with the C > T transition being the most frequent (85.7%). Thus, in a forensic evaluation of evidence, IDIs may represent an actual issue, particularly when DNA mixtures need to be interpreted because they could mislead the operator regarding the number of contributors. Overall, the molecular features of the IDIs described in this work, as well as the performance of duplicate tests, may be useful tools for managing this new class of artifacts otherwise not detected by capillary electrophoresis technology.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35358339
doi: 10.1002/elps.202100143
pmc: PMC9543752
doi:
Substances chimiques
DNA
9007-49-2
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1521-1530Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Electrophoresis published by Wiley-VCH GmbH.
Références
J Mol Diagn. 2020 Aug;22(8):994-1007
pubmed: 32480002
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2018 Sep;36:95-103
pubmed: 29986231
Electrophoresis. 2022 Jul;43(13-14):1521-1530
pubmed: 35358339
Electrophoresis. 2018 Nov;39(21):2708-2724
pubmed: 30101987
Genome Res. 2017 Mar;27(3):491-499
pubmed: 28100584
Biochemistry. 1974 Jul 30;13(16):3405-10
pubmed: 4601435
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2017 Nov;31:126-134
pubmed: 28938153
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2015 Nov;19:1-9
pubmed: 26036183
Int J Legal Med. 2020 Jan;134(1):79-91
pubmed: 31414202
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Mar 21;103(12):4392-7
pubmed: 16537362
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2015 Jul;17:110-121
pubmed: 25955683
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2019 Nov;43:102152
pubmed: 31518964
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2016 Jan;20:20-29
pubmed: 26433485
Genome Res. 2014 Nov;24(11):1894-904
pubmed: 25135957
Int J Legal Med. 2020 Jul;134(4):1291-1303
pubmed: 32451905
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2020 Nov;49:102400
pubmed: 33075733
Electrophoresis. 2017 Apr;38(8):1163-1174
pubmed: 28078776
Int J Legal Med. 2019 Sep;133(5):1369-1380
pubmed: 31267160
Anal Biochem. 2018 May 15;549:107-112
pubmed: 29551671
PLoS One. 2020 Feb 21;15(2):e0229063
pubmed: 32084206
Mol Diagn Ther. 2014 Oct;18(5):587-93
pubmed: 25091469
Biochemistry. 1972 Sep 12;11(19):3618-23
pubmed: 4559796
Electrophoresis. 2014 Nov;35(21-22):3134-44
pubmed: 25176610
Int J Legal Med. 2020 Jan;134(1):185-198
pubmed: 31745634
BMC Med Genomics. 2014 May 13;7:23
pubmed: 24885028
Biochemistry. 1972 Sep 12;11(19):3610-8
pubmed: 4626532
Electrophoresis. 2018 Nov;39(21):2642-2654
pubmed: 30101986
PCR Methods Appl. 1991 Aug;1(1):17-24
pubmed: 1842916
PLoS Comput Biol. 2013 Apr;9(4):e1003031
pubmed: 23592973
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2010 Apr;4(3):148-57
pubmed: 20215026
Forensic Sci Int. 2006 Dec 1;164(1):33-44
pubmed: 16343834
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005 Dec;71(12):8966-9
pubmed: 16332901
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2017 Nov;31:111-117
pubmed: 28888135
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2012 May;6(3):317-21
pubmed: 21840278
Nat Rev Genet. 2016 May 17;17(6):333-51
pubmed: 27184599
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2016 May;22:25-36
pubmed: 26828903
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2017 May;28:188-194
pubmed: 28279935
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2016 May;22:54-63
pubmed: 26844919
Nucleic Acids Res. 1996 Aug 15;24(16):3189-94
pubmed: 8774899
Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2013 Jul 01;5(7):
pubmed: 23729639
Anal Chem. 2019 Jan 2;91(1):673-688
pubmed: 30485738
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2021 Jan;50:102401
pubmed: 33171316
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2019 Nov;43:102147
pubmed: 31437781
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2015 Sep;18:100-17
pubmed: 25866376
PLoS One. 2017 May 18;12(5):e0178005
pubmed: 28542338
Nucleic Acids Res. 2015 Mar 31;43(6):e37
pubmed: 25586220
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Sep 12;103(37):13578-84
pubmed: 16938852