One-step endpoint RT-PCR assays for confirmatory body fluid identification

Messenger RNA (mRNA) expression analysis is increasingly used in casework, in the form of multiplex two-step reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) assays such as CellTyper 2 (CT2), developed by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR). This paper presents the development of a one-step endpoint RT-PCR workflow to improve the efficiency and precision of confirmatory body fluid identification. A comparative study of commercial one-step RT-PCR kits was undertaken, with the highest performing kit (RNA to C_T) retained for further development. Sensitivity, specificity across body fluids, and precision was assessed simultaneously using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. An optimal RFU cut-off value which maximised sensitivity and specificity was determined for each marker. All assays performed significantly better when compared to the equivalent of a completely uninformative test (area under the curve of 0.5) for their target body fluid. Sensitivity varied between different donors, but the limit of detectionss were estimated as follows; saliva markers HTN3: 1 in 100 dilution of a whole buccal swab and FDCSP: 1 in 10 dilution of a whole buccal swab, circulatory blood marker SLC4A1: 0.1 µL blood, menstrual fluid markers STC1, MMP10: 1 in 10 dilution of a whole menstrual swab, spermatozoa markers PRM1, TNP1: 0.1 µL semen, seminal fluid markers KLK2: 0.1 µL semen and MSMB: 0.01 µL semen, and vaginal material marker CYP2B7P: 1 in 1000 dilution of a whole vaginal swab. The method successfully detected most body fluids in a range of simple mixtures with 77 out of 80 markers observed when expected. The developed one-step endpoint RT-PCR assays lack the sensitivity and precision required for forensic casework and provide little benefit when compared with standard two-step endpoint RT-PCR, other than minimal time and cost savings, similar sensitivity, and improved precision for some markers. As both methods utilise endpoint RT-PCR, they have the same narrow linear dynamic range. The novel method is therefore similarly susceptible to varied RNA input, a major disadvantage of this approach. The limited sensitivity and precision consistently encountered with endpoint RT-PCR - regardless of cDNA synthesis strategy - could be addressed by a real-time PCR approach.