Abstract
The quantification of human DNA extracts from forensic samples plays a key role in the forensic genetics process, ensuring maximum efficiency and avoiding repeated analyses, over-amplified samples, or unnecessary examinations. In our laboratory, we use the Quantifiler® Trio system to quantify DNA extracts from a wide range of samples extracted from traces (bloodstains, saliva, semen, tissues, etc.), including swabs from touched objects, which are very numerous in the forensic context. This method has been extensively used continuously for nine years, following an initial validation process, and is part of the ISO/IEC 17025 accredited method. In routine practice, based on the quantitative values determined from the extracts of each trace, we use a standard method or a low-copy-number method that involves repeating the amplification with the generation of a consensus genetic profile. Nowadays, when the quantification results are less than 0.003 ng/μL in the minimum extraction volume (40 μL), we do not proceed with the DNA extract analysis. By verifying the limits of the method, we make a conscious cost-benefit choice, in particular by using the least amount of DNA needed to obtain sufficiently robust genetic profiles appropriate for submission to the Italian DNA Forensic Database. In this work, we present a critical re-evaluation of this phase of the method, which is based on the use of standard curves obtained from the average values of the control DNA analysed in duplicate. Considering the various contributions to uncertainty that are difficult to measure, such as manual pipetting or analytical phases carried out by different operators, we have decided to thoroughly investigate the contribution of variability in the preparation of calibration curves to the final results. Thus, 757 samples from 20 independent experiments were re-evaluated using two different standards for the construction of curves, determining the quantitative differences between the two methods. The experiments also determined the parameters of the slope, Y-intercept, R2, and the values of the synthetic control probe to verify how these parameters can provide information on the final outcome of each analysis. The outcome of this revalidation demonstrated that it is preferable to use quantification ranges rather than exact quantitative limits before deciding how to analyse the extracts via PCR or forgoing the determination of profiles. Additionally, we present some preliminary data related to the analysis of samples that would not have been analysed based on the initial validation, from which genetic profiles were obtained after applying a concentration method to the extracts. Our goal is to improve the accredited analytical method, with a careful risk assessment as indicated by accreditation standards, ensuring that no source of evidence is lost in the reconstruction of a criminal event.