Identification of tetragametic human chimerism by routine DNA profiling.

Chimerism in humans is defined as the presence of two genetically different cell lines within the same organism. It is usually an acquired condition that is restricted to certain tissues and can be explained by therapeutic interventions such as blood transfusion or the transplantation of allogenic hematopoietic cells. Implications of such patients for forensic DNA testing have been described in the literature. In some rare cases, true inherited chimerism is observed. This so called tetragametic chimerism occurs via the fertilization of the two ova by two spermatozoa, followed by the fusion of early embryos and the development of an organism with intermingled cell lines. Such examples have been found in mice and other mammalian species including humans. We describe a phenotypically normal woman in whom tetragametic chimerism (46,XX/46,XX) was unexpectedly identified by STR typing during routine DNA profiling. Cytogenetic analysis proved to be a valuable tool for both independent confirmation and direct visualization of the two coexisting cell lines.

Results of a collaborative study on DNA identification of aged bone samples.

AIM: A collaborative exercise with several institutes was organized by the Forensic DNA Service (FDNAS) and the Institute of the Legal Medicine, 2nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic, with the aim to test performance of different laboratories carrying out DNA analysis of relatively old bone samples. METHODS: Eighteen laboratories participating in the collaborative exercise were asked to perform DNA typing of two samples of bone powder. Two bone samples provided by the National Museum and the Institute of Archaelogy in Prague, Czech Republic, came from archeological excavations and were estimated to be approximately 150 and 400 years old. The methods of genetic characterization including autosomal, gonosomal, and mitochondrial markers was selected solely at the discretion of the participating laboratory. RESULTS: Although the participating laboratories used different extraction and amplification strategies, concordant results were obtained from the relatively intact 150 years old bone sample. Typing was more problematic with the analysis of the 400 years old bone sample due to poorer quality. CONCLUSION: The laboratories performing identification DNA analysis of bone and teeth samples should regularly test their ability to correctly perform DNA-based identification on bone samples containing degraded DNA and potential inhibitors and demonstrate that risk of contamination is minimized.