Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intra-bone nuclear DNA variability in Second World War metatarsal and metacarpal bones

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Legal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

DNA analysis of Second World War skeletal remains is challenging because of the limited yield of DNA that is usually recovered. Recent forensic research has focused on determining which skeletal elements are superior in their preservation of DNA, and little focus has been placed on measuring intra-bone variability. Metatarsals and metacarpals outperformed all the other bones in DNA yield when analyzing all representative skeletal elements of three Second World War victims, and intra-bone variability was not studied. Soft-tissue remnants were found to contribute to higher DNA yield in trabecular bone tissue. Because metatarsals and metacarpals are composed of trabecular epiphyses and a dense diaphysis, the goal of this study was to explore intra-bone variability in DNA content by measuring nuclear DNA quantity and quality using the PowerQuant System (Promega). A total of 193 bones from a single Second World War mass grave were examined. From each bone, DNA was extracted from the compact diaphysis and from both spongy epiphyses combined. This study confirms higher DNA quantity in epiphyses than diaphyses among all the bones analyzed, and more DNA was obtained from metacarpal epiphyses than from metatarsal epiphyses. Therefore, whenever the possibility for sampling both metacarpals and metatarsals from skeletal remains exists, collecting metacarpals is recommended. In cases in which the hands are missing, metatarsals should be sampled. In any case, epiphyses are a richer source of DNA than diaphyses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ziętkiewicz E, Witt M, Daca P, Zebracka-Gala J, Goniewicz M, Jarzab B, Witt M (2012) Current genetic methodologies in the identification of disaster victims and in forensic analysis. J Appl Genet 53:41–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Sozer AC (2014) DNA analysis for missing person identification in mass fatalities. CRC Press, New York, p 323

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Emmons AL, Davoren J, DeBruyn JM, Mundorff AZ (2020) Inter and intra-individual variation in skeletal DNA preservation in buried remains. Forensic Sci Int Genet 44:102193

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Mundorff AZ, Davoren JM (2014) Examination of DNA yield rates for different skeletal elements at increasing post mortem intervals. Forensic Sci Int Genet 8:55–63

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Zupanc T, Zupanič PI, Podovšovnik E, Obal M (2020) High DNA yield from metatarsal and metacarpal bones from Slovenian Second World War skeletal remains. Forensic Sci Int Genet 51:102426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2020.102426

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Antinick TC, Foran DR (2019) Intra- and inter- element variability in mitochondrial and nuclear DNA from fresh and enviromentally exposed skeletal remains. J Forensic Sci 64:88–97

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Barta JL, Monroe C, Kemp BM (2014) Mitochondrial DNA preservation across 3000-years-old northern fur seal ribs is not related to bone density: implications foe forensic investigations. Forensic Sci Int 239:11–18

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Higgins D, Rohrlach AB, Kaidonis J, Townsend G, Austin JJ (2015) Differential nuclear and mitochondrial DNA preservation in post-mortem teeth with implications for forensic and ancient DNA studies. PLoS One 10(5):e0126935. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126935

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Alberti F, Gonzalez J, Paijmans JLA, Basler N, Preick M, Henneberger K, Trinks A, Rabeder G, Conard NJ, Münzel SC, Joger U, Fritsch G, Hildebrandt T, Hofreiter M, Barlow A (2018) Optimized DNA sampling of ancient bones using computed tomography scans. Mol Ecol Resour 18:1196–1208

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Clarke B (2008) Normal bone anatomy and physiology. Am Soc Nephrol 3:S131–S139

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Gasser JA, Kneissel M (2017) Bone physiology and biology. In: Smith S, Varela A, Samadfam R (eds) Bone toxicology. Molecular and integrative toxicology. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  12. Zupanič PI (2016) Extraction of DNA from human skeletal material. In: Goodwin W (ed) Forensic DNA Typing Protocols, Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 1420. Springer Science&Business Media, LLC, New York, pp 89–108

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Gardner MJ, Altman DG (1986) Confidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing. Br Med J 292:746–750

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Zupanič PI, Gornjak-Pogorelc B, Balažic J (2010) Molecular genetic identification of skeletal remains from the Second World War Konfin I mass grave in Slovenia. Int J Legal Med 124:307–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Zupanič PI, Obal M, Zupanc T (2020) Identifying victims of the largest Second World War family massacre in Slovenia. Forensic Sci Int 306:110056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ewing MM, Thompson JM, McLaren RS, Purpero VM, Thomas KJ, Dobrowski PA, Dobrowski PA, DeGroot GA, Romsos EL, Storts DR (2016) Human DNA quantification and sample assessment: Developmental validation of the PowerQuant system. Forensic Sci Int Genet 23:166–177

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Zupanič PI, Zupanc T, Balažic J, Geršak ŽM, Stojković O, Skadrić I, Črešnar M (2017) Prediction of autosomal STR typing success in ancient and Second World War bone samples. Forensic Sci Int Genet 27:17–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Al-Akhras M-AH, Hasan Qaseer MK, Albiss BA, Anwar Alebrhim M, Gezawa US (2018) Investigation of composition and structure of spongy and hard bone tissue using FTIR spectroscopy. XRD SEM IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng 305:012010. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/305/1/012010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Frost HM (2003) Bone′s mechanostat: A 2003 update. Anat Rec Part A 275:1081–1101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Robling AG, Castillo AB, Turner CH (2006) Biomechanical and molecular regulation of bone remodeling. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 8:455–498

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Scheuer L (2001) In: Carter DR, Beaupré GS (eds) Skeletal function and form: mechanobiology of skeletal development, aging, and regeneration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  22. Currey JD (2002) Bones: structure and mechanics. Princeton University Press

  23. Andronowski JM, Mundorff AZ, Davis RA, Price EW (2019) Application of X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy to examine surface chemistry of cancellous bone and medullary contents to refine bone sample selection for nuclear DNA analysis. J Anal At Spectrom 34:2074–2082

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Andronowski JM, Mundorff AZ, Pratt IV, Davoren JM (2017) Evaluating differential nuclear DNA yield rates and osteocyte numbers among human bone tissue types: a synchroyton radiation micro-CT approach. Forensic Sci Int Genet 28:211–218

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Schweitzer MH, Marshall M, Carron K, Bohle DS, Busse SC, Arnold EV, Bernard D, Horner JR, Starkey JR (1997) Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone. Proc Natl Acad Sci 94:6291–6296

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Schweitzer MH, Wittmeyer JL, Horner JR, Toporski JB (2005) Soft tissue vessels and cellular preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex. Science. 307:1952–1955

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Schweitzer MH, Wittmeyer JL, Horne JR (2007) Soft tissue preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present. Proc R Soc B 274:183–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Martill DM, Unwin DM (1997) Small spheres in fossil bones: blood corpuscles or diagenetic products? Paleontology. 40:619–624

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kaye TG, Gaugler G, Sawlowicz Z (2008) Dinosaurian soft tissues interpreted as bacterial biofilms. PLoS One 3(7):e2808. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002808

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Gotherstrom A, Collins MJ, Angerbjorn A, Liden K (2002) Bone preservation and DNA amplification. Archaeometry. 3:395–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Latham KE, Miller JJ (2019) DNA recovery and analysis from skeletal material in modern forensic contexts. Forensic Sci Res 4:51–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Emmons AL, Mundorff AZ, Keenan SW, Davoren J, Andronowski J, Carter DO, DeBruyn JM (2019) Patterns of microbial colonization of human bone from surface-decomposed remains. bioRxiv:664482. https://doi.org/10.1101/664482

  33. Mundorff AZ, Bartelink EJ, Mar-Cash E (2009) DNA preservation in skeletal elements from World Trade Center disaster: recommendations for mass fatality management. J Forensic Sci 54(4):739–745

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Ferreira STG, Kuser HH, Garrido RG, Trindade-Filho A, Paula KA, Galvão MF, Moraes AV (2011) Floods and mudslides in the State of Rio de Janeiro and a plane crash in the Brazilian Amazon rainforest: a study of two different experiences in disaster victim identification (DVI). Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser 3(1):516–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hines DZC, Vennemeyer M, Amory S, Huel RLM, Hanson I, Katzmarzyk C (2014) Prioritizing sampling of bone and teeth for DNA analysis in commingled cases. In: Adams BJ, Byrd JE (eds) Commingled human remains: methods in recovery, analysis, and identification. Elsevier Science, Oxford, pp 275–305

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Prinz M, Carracedo A, Mayr WR, Morling N, Parsons TJ, Sajantila A, Scheithauer R, Schmitter H, Schneider PM (2007) International Society for Forensic Genetics. DNA Commission of the International Society for Forensic Genetics (ISFG): Recommendations regarding the role of forensic genetics for disaster victim identification (DVI). Forensic Sci Int Genet 1:3–12

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the Slovenian Government Commission on Concealed Mass Graves for its support in exhumations of Second World War victims. This study was financially supported by the Slovenian Research Agency (project “Determination of the most appropriate skeletal elements for molecular genetic identification of aged human remains” J3-8214). The authors wish to thank Paolo Fattorini (Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Health, University of Trieste, Italy) for proofreading and scientific feedback.

Funding

This study was financially supported by the Slovenian Research Agency (project “Determination of the most appropriate skeletal elements for molecular genetic identification of aged human remains” J3-8214).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Forensic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Korytkova 2, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Jezerka Inkret, Tomaž Zupanc, Gregor Haring & Irena Zupanič Pajnič

  2. Faculty of Tourism Studies - Turistica, University of Primorska, Portorož, Slovenia

    Eva Podovšovnik

Authors
  1. Jezerka Inkret
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eva Podovšovnik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tomaž Zupanc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gregor Haring
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Irena Zupanič Pajnič
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Irena Zupanič Pajnič.

Ethics declarations

Ethical standards

The research project was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Republic of Slovenia (102/11/14).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Highlights

- Metacarpals and metatarsals were shown to have the highest DNA yields compared to other skeletal elements from three Second World War victims.

- Soft tissue remnants within the intertrabecular spaces of epiphyses contribute to higher DNA yield.

- All metacarpals and metatarsals analyzed showed higher DNA quantity in the epiphyses than the diaphyses.

- More DNA was obtained from metacarpal epiphyses than from metatarsal epiphyses.

- Whenever possible, metacarpals followed by metatarsals should be collected for DNA identification.

Supplementary Information

ESM 1

(XLSX 53 kb)

ESM 2

(DOCX 24 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Inkret, J., Podovšovnik, E., Zupanc, T. et al. Intra-bone nuclear DNA variability in Second World War metatarsal and metacarpal bones. Int J Legal Med 135, 1245–1256 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-021-02528-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-021-02528-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation