Turkish
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society 2020-Jan

Validation of presumptive tests for non-human blood using Kastle Meyer and Hemastix reagents.

Sadece kayıtlı kullanıcılar makaleleri çevirebilir
Giriş yapmak kayıt olmak
Bağlantı panoya kaydedilir
F Casali
S Ciavaglia
C Gannicliffe
N Lidstone
L Webster

Anahtar kelimeler

Öz

Kastle Meyer and Hemastix reagents are presumptive tests commonly used in forensic casework for the detection of blood, and their suitability has been reviewed in numerous publications. However, studies to date have focused on the validation of these tests on human blood alone, and no published work has looked at the sensitivity, specificity and effect on DNA analysis when using these reagents to presumptively test for animal blood. The aim of this study was to validate the two reagents for use with animal blood, and compare their performance in order to choose the best test based on the circumstances in wildlife crime investigation. The sensitivity, specificity, stability and robustness of the methods were assessed by experiments with dilutions of animal blood (from 1:4 to 1:65536) using direct and indirect (rub) tests, potential interfering substances, blood sources from different species and aged blood. The effects of the two reagents on subsequent DNA analysis were also investigated. During the direct tests, Kastle Meyer showed a higher sensitivity, detecting blood down to a dilution of 1:16,384, one order of magnitude lower than Hemastix. However during the rub test, Hemastix showed a higher sensitivity, detecting blood down to a dilution of 1:64 on porous materials while Kastle Meyer was positive only down to a dilution of 1:16. Moreover, when using the same swab for presumptive testing and DNA extraction, Hemastix testing allowed amplification of a sufficient amount of DNA for species identification at its limit of sensitivity on porous materials (1:64) while Kastle Meyer inhibited most amplification of DNA at its less sensitive limit of 1:16 dilution. On the other hand, Hemastix showed a much lower specificity, producing false positive results when exposed to tomato, potato, rust, avian uric acid, bleach and sink rot, while Kastle Meyer only produced a faint positive reaction from potato. Both tests performed equally well detecting fresh blood of different animal species. The stability test gave comparable results among the tests except for aged fish blood stains, where the Kastle Meyer test performed poorly. Owing to its ease of use, higher sensitivity, and lack of interference with downstream DNA analysis, and despite its reduced specificity compared to Kastle Meyer, the Hemastix method is more appropriate for use in wildlife crime investigations. Positive results would always be confirmed with DNA analysis and the low interference of the reagent will allow the use of a single swab for presumptive testing and DNA sampling.

Facebook sayfamıza katılın

Bilim tarafından desteklenen en eksiksiz şifalı otlar veritabanı

  • 55 dilde çalışır
  • Bilim destekli bitkisel kürler
  • Görüntüye göre bitki tanıma
  • Etkileşimli GPS haritası - bölgedeki bitkileri etiketleyin (yakında)
  • Aramanızla ilgili bilimsel yayınları okuyun
  • Şifalı bitkileri etkilerine göre arayın
  • İlgi alanlarınızı düzenleyin ve haber araştırmaları, klinik denemeler ve patentlerle güncel kalın

Bir belirti veya hastalık yazın ve yardımcı olabilecek bitkiler hakkında bilgi edinin, bir bitki yazın ve karşı kullanıldığı hastalıkları ve semptomları görün.
* Tüm bilgiler yayınlanmış bilimsel araştırmalara dayanmaktadır

Google Play badgeApp Store badge