Article

Efficacy of Several Candidate Protein Biomarkers in the Differentiation of Vaginal from Buccal Epithelial Cells*

Forensic Biology Group, ESR Limited, Auckland, New Zealand. ESR Ltd, Mt Albert Science Centre, Private Bag 92021 Auckland Mail Centre, Auckland 1142, New Zealand.
Journal of Forensic Sciences (Impact Factor: 1.31). 05/2012; 57(6). DOI: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2012.02158.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT   Currently, there is no accurate method to differentiate vaginal epithelial cells from buccal epithelial cells in biological samples typically encountered in forensic casework. This study tested the expression of a selection of candidate proteins in buccal and vaginal epithelial cells. We investigated six candidate biomarkers, such as loricrin, vimentin, stratifin, cytokeratin 4, cytokeratin 13, small proline-rich protein 2, and involucrin, using Western blot analysis on whole protein extracts and immunohistochemistry (IHC) on intact cells in an attempt to identify cell-specific markers that would differentiate these cells by microscopy. Involucrin, loricrin, and stratifin showed differential expression during Western blot analysis and were carried through to IHC. Although proteins unique to vaginal epithelial cells and buccal epithelial cells were not identified from among the proteins tested, the increased expression levels of two proteins, loricrin and stratifin in vaginal cells, when compared to buccal cells, do provide encouraging results in the search for epithelial cell-specific markers.

Full-text

Available from: Joanne L Simons, Jun 15, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
177 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A DNA profile from the perpetrator does not reveal, per se, the circumstances by which it was transferred. Body fluid identification by mRNA profiling may allow extraction of contextual ‘activity level’ information from forensic samples. Here we describe the development of a prototype multiplex digital gene expression (DGE) method for forensic body fluid/tissue identification based upon solution hybridization of color-coded NanoString® probes to 23 mRNA targets. The method identifies peripheral blood, semen, saliva, vaginal secretions, menstrual blood and skin. We showed that a simple 5 minute room temperature cellular lysis protocol gave equivalent results to standard RNA isolation from the same source material, greatly enhancing the ease-of-use of this method in forensic sample processing. We first describe a model for gene expression in a sample from a single body fluid and then extend that model to mixtures of body fluids. We then describe calculation of maximum likelihood estimates (MLEs) of body fluid quantities in a sample, and we describe the use of likelihood ratios to test for the presence of each body fluid in a sample. Known single source samples of blood, semen, vaginal secretions, menstrual blood and skin all demonstrated the expected tissue-specific gene expression for at least two of the chosen biomarkers. Saliva samples were more problematic, with their previously identified characteristic genes exhibiting poor specificity. Nonetheless the most specific saliva biomarker, HTN3, was expressed at a higher level in saliva than in any of the other tissues. Crucially, our algorithm produced zero false positives across this study's 89 unique samples. As a preliminary indication of the ability of the method to discern admixtures of body fluids, five mixtures were prepared. The identities of the component fluids were evident from the gene expression profiles of four of the five mixtures. Further optimization of the biomarker ‘CodeSet’ will be required before it can be used in casework, particularly with respect to increasing the signal-to-noise ratio of the saliva biomarkers. With suitable modifications, this simplified protocol with minimal hands on requirement should facilitate routine use of mRNA profiling in casework laboratories.
    Forensic Science International: Genetics 09/2014; 14. DOI:10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.09.005 · 3.20 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Human biological traces have the potential to present strong evidence for placing a suspect at a crime scene. In cases, the activity that led to deposition of an individual's cellular material is increasingly disputed, for which the identification of cell types could be crucial. This review aims to give an overview of the possibilities of the employment of mRNA, miRNA, DNA methylation and microbial markers for tissue identification in a forensic context. The biological background that renders these markers tissue-specificity is considered, as this can affect data interpretation. Furthermore, the forensic relevance of inferring certain cell types is discussed, as are the various methodologies that can be applied. Forensic stains can carry minute amounts of cell material that may be degraded or polluted and most likely cell material of multiple sources will be present. The interpretational challenges that are imposed by this compromised state will be discussed as well.
    Forensic Science International: Genetics 11/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.11.015 · 3.20 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Messenger RNA profiling is becoming a common method for body fluid identification in forensic science but there are disadvantages when cell mixtures are present from more than one individual. A method that could identify and separate such cell mixtures would simplify downstream analysis. To do this, we have developed a novel method of RNA suspension-fluorescent in situ hybridization (RNA S-FISH) using a locked nucleic acid (LNA) probe for the keratin 10 (KRT10) mRNA that is suitable as a potential marker for epithelial cells. As sample size may be restricted in forensic samples, this method has focused on minimizing cell loss whilst maintaining signal strength. Furthermore, we have shown that it is possible to obtain full DNA profiles from 150 RNA S-FISH labeled cells isolated using laser microdissection.
    Forensic Science International: Genetics 03/2014; 9:85–92. DOI:10.1016/j.fsigen.2013.11.007 · 3.20 Impact Factor