Forensic Science International 289 (2018) 253–259

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Forensic Science International

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/forsciint

DNA identification of human remains in Disaster Victim Identification

(DVI): An efficient sampling method for muscle, bone, bone marrow
and teeth
Hans H. de Boera,b,* , George J.R. Maatc , D. Aji Kadarmod , Putut T. Widodoe ,
Ate D. Kloostermana,f , Arnoud J. Kala
a
Netherlands Forensic Institute, The Hague, The Netherlands
b
Dept. of Pathology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
c
Barge’s Anthropologica, Dept. of Anatomy, Embryology and Physiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands
d
Section of Forensic Medicine, Jakarta Metropolitan Police, Jakarta, Indonesia
e
DNA laboratory, Police Medicine and Health Services Centre, Indonesia National Police, Jakarta, Indonesia
f
Faculty of Science IBED, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history:
Received 1 May 2018 In disaster victim identification (DVI), DNA profiling is considered to be one of the most reliable and
Accepted 27 May 2018 efficient means to identify bodies or separated body parts. This requires a post mortem DNA sample, and
Available online 4 June 2018 an ante mortem DNA sample of the presumed victim or their biological relative(s). Usually the collection
of an adequate ante mortem sample is technically simple, but the acquisition of a good quality post
Keywords: mortem sample under unfavourable DVI circumstances is complicated due to the variable degree of
Human identification preservation of the human remains and the high risk of DNA (cross) contamination. This paper provides
DNA sample the community with an efficient method to collect post-mortem DNA samples from muscle, bone, bone
MH17
marrow and teeth, with a minimal risk of contamination. Our method has been applied in a recent,
Mass disaster
challenging DVI operation (i.e. the identification of the 298 victims of the MH17 airplane crash in 2014).
Forensic
Contamination 98,2% of the collected PM samples provided the DVI team with highly informative DNA genotyping
DVI results without the risk of contamination and consequent mistyping the victim’s DNA. Moreover, the
method is easy, cheap and quick. This paper provides the DVI community with a step-wise instructions
with recommendations for the type of tissue to be sampled and the site of excision (preferably the upper
leg). Although initially designed for DVI purposes, the method is also suited for the identification of
individual victims.
© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction originate from the presumed victim themselves, as DNA profiles

The matching of a post mortem DNA profile of an unidentified
person with an ante mortem reference DNA profile of an individual of
known identity, a so-called comparative DNA analysis, is one of the
preferred methods to identify anonymous individuals or human
remains [1,2]. This is not solely due to the high evidential value of a
DNA profile, but also to the minimal amount of DNA that is required
for analysis. DNA can be collected from almost any body part, also
when the human remains are in an advanced state of decomposition.
Further, the ante mortem reference DNA does not necessarily have to
* Corresponding author at: Netherlands Forensic Institute, Laan van Ypenburg 6,
2497GB, The Hague, The Netherlands.
E-mail address: h.de.boer@nfi.minvenj.nl (H.H. de Boer).
from biological relatives also suit the purpose of identification.
Moreover, the extraction of DNA from tissue samples and the
comparison of DNA profiles is presently mostly standardized,
automated and digitalized. Optimized procedures, enable high-
volume throughput and facilitate the collection and comparison of
DNA profiles from different laboratories and countries.
Consequently, DNA analysis is a widely used identification
means in disaster victim identification (DVI) (e.g. Refs. [3–7]).
Interpol’s DVI guide, accepted by all of its 190 member countries as
the international standard for conducting DVI operations, recog-
nizes DNA analysis as one of ‘the most reliable methods by which
identity can be confirmed’ [8].
For DVI purposes, comparative DNA analysis has two basic
preconditions to be met. It needs (a) high-quality non-DNA-
contaminated tissue sample(s) from the victim’s body or separated

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.05.044
0379-0738/© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
254 H.H. de Boer et al. / Forensic Science International 289 (2018) 253–259

body part (the post mortem sample), and a non-DNA-contaminat- Table 1

Materials and consumables.
ed reference sample from the presumed victim or from his/her
genetic relative(s) (the ante mortem sample). The ante mortem DNA cleaning fluid Sampling of muscle tissue, Tooth
sample is usually collected by police officers of the ante mortem bone tissue and bone marrow swabs extraction
investigation team, according to the guidelines for routine forensic Tap water A rectangular container Dental
casework (e.g. Refs. [9–11]). The collection of a post mortem (ca. 40  30  10 cm) forceps
Liquid soap/ A plastic bucket (15 l)
sample is more complicated, since the aforementioned guidelines
detergent
do not address the challenges generally encountered during DVI Chlorine tablets/ Two sponges
operations. Complications are for instance: the highly variable bleach
degree of preservation of the human remains, and the high risk of A nail brush
(cross) contamination, primarily from commingling with other A large surgical scalpel (e.g. PM-40)
A pair of medium sized surgical
human remains and to a lesser extent from for instance the rescue
tweezers
team, body collectors, transporters and co-investigators [8,12]. The A hacksaw frame (e.g. Bahco1 319)
Interpol DVI Guide [8], the DNA commission of the International A set of hacksaw blades (14 or 18 TPI)
Society for Forensic Genetics [12], and several reports of DVI A chisel, with a blade width of 10 mm
A 1 l bottle of alcohol 99.9%
operations (e.g. [13]) or experimental studies provide general
A wash bottle (suitable for alcohol)
advice on the tissue type and the amount of tissue that should be Sterile plastic containers with lid
sampled, but do not elaborate on the sampling technique. (50 ml)
In 2008, Westen et al. have tackled this deficit by providing the Sterile tubed dry swabs
community with a step-wise manual for ‘sample collection from Post mortem needle and thread

the rib, femur and teeth for the DNA analysis in disaster victim
identification’ [14]. Experience has shown that their method is
easy and cheap, while it minimizes the risk of contamination and
provides excellent DNA profiling results. It is the method of choice
of the Dutch DVI team and has been repeatedly applied, for
instance at the 2004/5 south–east Asian tsunami disaster, the
Benzdorp airplane crash in Surinam in 2008, the Afriqiyah Airways
airplane disaster in Tripoli in 2010 and in many forensic cases
involving only one or few casualties. However, due to lessons
learned from morgue experience over the last eight years with
respect to sample selection, tissue collection techniques and
downstream processing improvements, the initial description of
Westen et al. needs essential updating.
This article provides a new step-wise manual for adequate post
mortem sampling of human tissue for comparative DNA analysis,
even in case of severely decomposed, damaged, burnt, skeletonised
and/or intermingled human remains. Many tissues have been
suggested for this purpose (e.g. Refs. [15–18]), but for reasons of
availability the method focuses on muscle tissue, bone tissue, bone
marrow and teeth. The performance of the method will be
illustrated by the results of the last large-scale DVI operation in
which it was deployed: the identification of the 298 victims of the
MH17 airplane crash in Ukraine in 2014.
2. Materials
The sampling method only requires regular medical equipment,
and tools and chemicals that can be easily acquired from a local
hardware store (see Table 1), which makes the method as
accessible as possible.
3. The procedure
3.1. General directives
A single individual should be able to perform the method,
though assistance from a colleague is helpful. Always:
- Wear protective clothing (e.g. disposable coverall, hair net, face
mask or gas mask, disposable plastic surgical gloves and a plastic
apron). It provides protection to the examiner and reduces the risk
of DNA contamination of the excised samples by the examiner.
- Work as if in a surgical operating theatre, namelyas clean as possible.
- Immediately abort the process and take appropriate cleaning
measures in case of suspected DNA-contamination. Never clean
a potentially contaminated tissue sample. Take a new one.
Abbreviations: TPI: teeth per inch.
3.2. Preparing the DNA decontamination fluid
Prepare sufficient DNA decontamination fluid (according to
Westen et al. [14]) to fill the rectangular container and the large
plastic bucket. For this, mix 1 ml of liquid soap/detergent per litre
of tap water and chlorine up to a concentration of ca. 0.5% [19,20].
Chlorine tablets usually contain approximately 90% chlorine and
household bleach approximately 5%. Practise has shown that if the
composition of the mixture varies to a slight degree, the DNA
cleaning fluid will stay effective for the DNA decontamination of
any surface, instrument and specimen.
3.3. Setting up the working station
In the hectic environment of a DVI mortuary, a separate ‘stand-
alone’ working station minimizes the risk of contamination. A
typical station would consist of an autopsy table with drainage,
warm and cold water taps, and a separate table to station the tools,
the necessary fluids and the DNA storage containers.
Fill the plastic bucket and the rectangular container with DNA
cleaning fluid. Clean the surgical scalpel, hacksaw, chisel and
tweezers inside the bucket by means of nailbrush and/or sponge.
Keep the nailbrush and the sponge in the bucket and store the
cleaned tools, ready for use, submerged in the rectangular
container (Fig. 1). Storing them submerged and cleaning each
instrument directly after use, minimizes the risk of contamination.
Fill the wash bottle with alcohol 99.9% and close its lid. Make
sure that the sterile plastic DNA sample containers and sterile
tubed swabs are within reach.
3.4. Procedure in case of relative intact bodies or body parts
Relative intact bodies allow for the sampling of muscle tissue,
bone tissue, bone marrow and teeth. For the selection of excision
site, see the discussion (Section 6). In the following step by step
manual the thigh will stand as an example for all other selected
body parts, except for the teeth. For the sampling of teeth see
Section 3.6.
Step 1: Clean the skin of the thigh with tap water and a sponge.
If necessary, use some detergent.
Step 2: Make sure that the thigh is mechanically in a stable
position and somewhat lifted from the table surface. The latter can
 H.H. de Boer et al. / Forensic Science International 289 (2018) 253–259 255

Fig. 1. The tools that are used for taking the DNA samples are stored in a shallow plastic container and submerged in DNA cleaning fluid.

be achieved by supporting the distal part of the extremity with
some kind of makeshift strut.
Step 3: Clean the skin surface for a second time, now using the
DNA cleaning fluid and the sponge from the plastic bucket.
Step 4: Make with the scalpel a superficial U-shaped cut (only a
few millimetres deep) covering the site of DNA excision. The cut
representing the basis of the U-shape should be made parallel to
the longitudinal axis of the thigh and a little over halfway down
one of the sides of the thigh. The two parallel cuts representing the
‘legs’ of the U-shape should be made perpendicular to the
longitudinal axis of the thigh, at least ten centimetres at a
distance, and extend over the top to about a little over halfway
down the opposite side of the thigh (Fig. 2a).
Step 5: Clean the scalpel with DNA cleaning fluid and clean/
rinse the superficial cut by squeezing DNA cleaning fluid from a
soaked sponge.
Step 6: Deepen all three cuts until one reaches the bone surface.
Expose the bone surface by dissecting the skin-muscle flap from
the bone and folding it laterally or medially (Fig. 2b). Longitudinal
cuts into the muscle tissue of the skin-muscle flap will prevent it
from folding back (Fig. 2c).
Step 7: Take with the tweezers and the scalpel a DNA sample from
the (deep) muscle tissue directly adjacent to the bone (5–10 g).
Step 8: Holding the excised tissue with the tweezers, rinse it for
a few seconds under running tap water. Subsequently dip it for a
few seconds in the DNA cleaning fluid to eliminate any surface
contamination, and give it a last quick rinse with tap water, to
remove any remaining DNA cleaning fluid.
Step 9: Dehydrate the DNA sample surface by washing it with some
alcohol 99.9% by means of the wash bottle, and let it become more or
less air dry in few seconds. Do not hasten the drying process by waving
it around. Close the container with alcohol 99.9% directly after use.
Step 10: Store the tissue sample in a labelled sterile plastic
container. Keep it out of direct light and cool (in a freezer, a
refrigerator or in a bucket with melting ice cubes) until a DNA
profiling laboratory processes it.

Fig. 2. Dissection method to expose the bone tissue and adjacent muscle tissue. (a) The skin is incised by a U-shaped cut that only reaches into the superficial subcutaneous
fat. The cut representing the basis of the U-shape runs parallel to the longitudinal axis of the thigh and a little over halfway down on the lateral or medial side of the thigh. The
two parallel cuts representing the ‘legs’ of the U-shape are made perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the thigh, and extend over the top to about a little over halfway down
the opposite side of the thigh. (b) After decontaminating the knife and the superficial cut with DNA-cleaning fluid, the cuts are deepened till it reaches the bone surface. (c) The
bone surface of the femur is exposed by separating the skin-muscle flap from the bone and folding it laterally or medially. Longitudinal cuts in the skin-muscle flap will
prevent it from folding back.
Please note that the depicted body part is from the body donation programme of the Dept. of Medical Biology of the Academic Medical Centre in Amsterdam, and is unrelated
to the MH17 airplane crash.
256 H.H. de Boer et al. / Forensic Science International 289 (2018) 253–259

Step 11: If necessary to prevent the hacksaw from touching
any possibly DNA contaminated soft tissue surfaces, deepen
the longitudinal cuts in the muscle tissue of the skin-muscle
flap. Scrape the periosteum from the bone tissue surface with
the scalpel, as this may clog the saw teeth during the next step.
Step 12: With the hacksaw, make a transverse cut into the bone
shaft of approximately 2/3 of the thickness of the bone (Fig. 3a). A
full transverse cut will unnecessarily destabilize the limb. At
approximately 1 cm proximal and distal from the initial cut, make
two oblique saw cuts that meet the first cut at its lowest point
(Fig. 3b). This creates two wedges of cortical bone tissue and an
opening to the bone marrow cavity. Extract the wedges using the
tweezers and, if necessary, the chisel (Fig. 3c). Process each wedge
separately as described in steps 8 to 10.
Step 13: Clean the hacksaw. The bone dust that tends to lodge
between the teeth of the saw blade can be removed with a
nailbrush at the bucket with DNA cleaning fluid.
Step 14: The removal of the bone tissue wedges has exposed the
bone marrow (cavity), which can now be sampled with a tubed dry
sterile swab (Fig. 3d). Store the bone marrow swab out of direct
light and frozen or refrigerated.
Step 15: Fold the skin-muscle flap in place, and close the
excision site with post mortem needle and thread.
Step 16: Ensure that all specimens are labelled appropriately
and that all necessary forms are completed, respectively entered
into a digital data base. Clean the used instruments with DNA
cleaning fluid and store them submerged in the container with the
DNA cleaning fluid.
3.5. Procedure in case of decomposed/damaged, skeletonised and/or
intermingled body parts
Decomposing or damaged muscle tissue should only be
sampled if covered by a large protective flap of undamaged skin.
Anatomically, the sample should be taken from as deep as possible,
and should always be accompanied by bone tissue samples. The
bone sample is a backup sample in case the tissue sample fails to
yield an informative DNA profile. Apply the procedure as described
in Section 3.4.
Decomposing or damaged skeletonized tissue (bone) should be
sampled according to its physical status as listed in Table 2. The
table shows that the excision strategy depends on the amount of
bone tissue available for excision. With respect to the size/weight
limit of the sample feasible for DNA profiling, one should consult
the DNA profiling laboratory in question. If possible, an accompa-
nying bone marrow swab should be taken.
Step 1: Remove any remaining soft tissue and/or periosteum
from the bone tissue surface.
Step 2: Clean the bone tissue surface thoroughly with the
nailbrush and DNA cleaning fluid.
Step 3: Harvest two samples in case of ‘Sample Category’ 1 and
2, and the complete sample in case of ‘Sample Category’ 3. The use
of an easy-to-clean support, such as a hard plastic cutting board,
will make the sawing easier.
Step 4: Process the samples according to steps 8–10 in Section 3.4.
Step 5: If applicable, swab the exposed bone marrow with a
sterile tubed swab.

Fig. 3. Excising the bone tissue samples and sampling the bone marrow. (a) The first saw cut in the bone shaft is made transversally, and reaches no further than
approximately 2/3 of the thickness of the bone. (b) Two oblique saw cuts meet the first cut at its lowest point, resulting in two wedges of mostly cortical bone tissue. (c) The
wedges are subsequently removed with the tweezers and, if needed, the chisel. The chisel is used to gently disconnect any remaining bone tissue bridge between the wedge
and the skeletal element. (d) After removal of the bone tissue wedges, the bone marrow is sampled by inserting a dry sterile swab into the marrow cavity.
The depicted body part is the same as shown in Fig. 2a–d, and is thus unrelated to the to the MH17 airplane crash.
 H.H. de Boer et al. / Forensic Science International 289 (2018) 253–259
Table 2
Defined categories of tissue quality in case of decomposed/damaged skeletonised remains.
Cat. Description
1 Bone tissue of sufficient size and quality allowing for two DNA profiling samples, and for resampling if demanded.
2 Bone tissue of sufficient size and quality allowing for two DNA profiling samples only.
3 Bone tissue of sufficient size and quality allowing for only one DNA profiling sample.
4 Human tissue unfit for DNA profiling analysis, non-human tissue and non-biological material.
Step 6: Act conform step 16 of Section 3.4, and store the
remaining tissue for any resampling or eventual release after
identification.
3.6. Sampling of teeth
Extract with the dental forceps an intact, mature tooth with a
closed apex. Process the dental element as a ‘Category 3’ bone
tissue sample.
4. Results
The described method was used during the DVI operation relating
to the MH17 airplane crash on July 17th 2014 in Eastern Ukraine. In
the course of the operation more than 8000 body parts, ranging from
relatively intact bodies to extremely small, charred and/or skeleton-
ized bone fragments of several grams, were examined in an
emergency mortuary in Hilversum, the Netherlands. The bodies
and body parts were extremely commingled, and due to the civil war
hostilities in Ukraine at the time, many body parts were only
recovered 7 to 8 months after the disaster.
4958 of the body parts were deemed suitable for DNA retrieval.
Almost all body parts were sampled more than once, to
compensate for failure and for confirmation of the DNA typing
results. This resulted in a total of 8269 DNA samples consisting of
198 muscle tissue samples, 4846 bone tissue samples, 312 bone
marrow samples and 246 tooth samples. Priority was given to the
collection of muscle and bone marrow samples because these
tissues allow for easy and rapid processing. However these
samples could only be taken from relatively intact bodies and
body parts. This illustrates that the large majority (4500+ ) of the
body parts form the MH17 crash were heavily fragmented,
decomposed/skeletonized and/or thermally altered.
Nevertheless 98.2% (4870/4958) of the body parts provided
informative DNA profiling results. 88 body parts did not provide a
reportable DNA profiling result. In 11 cases (12.5%) (11/88) this was
due to the presence of more than one DNA profile; ten times the
contamination originated from another victim, and once from one
of the examiners. In 83% (73/88) of cases, no DNA profile could be
retrieved. In 4.5% (4/88) of cases the failures was due to technical
laboratory issues. These results are summarized in Table 3.
5. Discussion
Overall, the 98.2% success rate of our sampling method during
the MH17 DVI operation shows that the method is highly effective
in eliminating and/or preventing cross contamination, while
providing informative DNA genotyping results. Given the specific
challenges related to this particular operation, such as a high
degree of commingling of body parts and the elapsed time until
sampling, it is expected that the performance of our method in
other scenarios would perform even better.
It should be noted that our results illustrates the success rate at
the level of body parts. Since one body part may be used for several
types of samples, our results cannot be used to determine the
performance of the method per tissue type. Due to the retrospec-
tive nature of this survey, it is unfortunately almost impossible to
257
Table 3
Performance of the ‘Dutch’ method at the MH17 DVI operation.
Number of taken and processed samples
Number of samples taken 8269
Number of processed samples 5602
Bone tissue 4846
Muscle tissue 198
Bone marrow swab 312
Teeth 246
Performance of the sampling method
Number of body parts 4958
Successful DNA retrieval 4870 (98.2%)
Unsuccessful DNA retrieval 88 (1.8%)
No profile 73 (83%)
Mixed profile 11 (12.5%)
Technical issues 4 (4.5%)
retrieve such data. Nevertheless, based on our experience, we feel
that bone marrow and muscle tissue are the easiest to sample and
to process, though at the cost of more DNA retrieval failures such as
contamination. Bone tissue might be more difficult to sample and
to process, but remains the safest in terms of contamination and
DNA retrieval. Teeth seem to underperform in comparison to bone
tissue, although this might be linked to specific circumstances
related to the described case (e.g. thermal alteration due to
combustion).
One of the major advantages of our method is the use of readily
available, relatively cheap materials. The use of an inexpensive,
own-made DNA cleaning fluid circumvents the procurement and
transportation of more expensive, industrially produced solutions.
Similarly, a hacksaw is a much cheaper alternative for a surgical
amputation saw. In addition, a surgical saw would need regular
sharpening due to the blunting effect of the DNA cleaning fluid;
disposable saw blades are an inexpensive and easy alternative. The
use of an electric saw is strongly advised against because the motor
cannot be properly cleaned from bone (DNA) particles, it requires
electricity at the wet working station, and it spreads airborne bone
saw dust with the risk of uncontrollable DNA contamination.
6. Choosing the tissue type and sampling site of the DNA sample
Several factors are known to contribute to DNA degradation,
such as humidity, raised temperature, temperature fluctuations,
post mortem intervals, UV-light and decomposition by microbes
and fungi [21]. Nevertheless, present-day laboratory techniques
are able to generate a DNA profile from small samples with little
DNA. Thus, the decision about from which anatomical body part
the sample should be excised ought to be based on the potency to
collect uncontaminated tissue, rather than to the potency to collect
large quantities of DNA.
DNA profiling laboratories prefer to receive muscle tissue
samples and bone marrow swabs, since these types of tissue are
easier and quicker to process than bone tissue samples or teeth.
Still, we advocate the additional collection of bone tissue and/or
teeth. These samples may avoid the need for time-consuming re-
excision in cases of mislabelled samples or if non-informative or
258 H.H. de Boer et al. / Forensic Science International 289 (2018) 253–259
contaminated DNA profiles are obtained from the first sampling
attempt. Unlike muscle and bone marrow samples, bone and teeth
samples can be decontaminated by sand blasting or submersion in
bleach. To save time DNA profiling laboratories might prefer to
start with the rapid processing procedure of muscle tissue or bone
marrow swabs, in the knowledge that back-up bone tissue samples
or tooth are readily available.
6.1. Sampling site in case of relative intact bodies or body parts
In case of relative intact bodies or body parts, DNA samples are
preferably excised from the extremities. Especially the lower
extremity is known for its ability to absorb mechanical trauma and
to restrain temperature fluctuations by its soft tissue mass. In this
respect the upper extremity, especially the upper arm, is the
second best choice. If possible, avoid closed fractures, as they are
likely to cause excision difficulties.
6.2. Sampling site in case of decomposing/damaged or skeletonised
remains
Substantially decomposed/damaged or skeletonised remains
are more likely to carry contaminated and/or degraded DNA. Body
parts with lacerations, deep soft tissue wounds, open fractures or
extensive thermal damage should therefore be avoided as much as
possible.
Muscle tissue should only be sampled if covered by a large
protective flap of undamaged skin. Anatomically, the sample should
be taken from as deep as possible, and should always be accompanied
by bone tissue samples. The latter restricts muscle tissue sampling to
those body parts that also permit bone tissue sampling.
Bone tissue samples are preferably taken from intact skeletal
elements covered by a protective cuff of soft tissue. Samples from
separated skeletal elements predominantly consisting of cortical
bone tissue are traditionally preferred over those dominated by
cancellous bone tissue [8,13,22], although nowadays the latter may
also produces satisfying genotyping results [21]. Samples from
fully charred or calcined bone tissue will produce incomplete or no
profile at all [23]. Their excision is therefore unnecessary.
In line with current developments in the field of forensic DNA
research, our results show that it is possible to produce informative
DNA profiles from extremely small bone remnants (i.e. of a few
grams). Consequently, an ‘a priori’ strategic decision should be
made to which degree of bone disintegration samples should still
be taken best practice is, that only bone samples from separated
bones or bone parts are taken out if the donor piece stretches 10 cm
or larger. Such a rule of the thumb presumes that smaller bone
fragments will somehow originate from other (larger?) ones
whether or not still attached to major parts of the body.
Nevertheless, one may be requested to analyze large amounts
(e.g. 1000+ ) of smaller fragments in case of an open disaster, or if
not every missing individual is accounted for, irrespective of how
time consuming and expensive such an effort may be. Our
classification system (Table 2) is designed to simplify such a search.
In the Dutch DVI team, the use of this classification system
enabled the pathologist and/or anthropologist to focus on the
examination and classification of body parts, while the actual
sampling is delegated to well-trained ‘sampling teams’ of
mortuary personnel. These teams work under close supervision
of the anthropologist or pathologist. In our experience, this
approach dramatically reduces the amount of time spend in the
mortuary, especially when multiple tissue sampling stations are
operated simultaneously.
Bone marrow swabs should only be taken from undamaged
skeletal elements, and should always be accompanied by bone
tissue samples.
6.3. Sampling teeth
To avoid loss of useful data, tooth extraction should be preceded
by forensic odontological consultation or analysis. Only healthy
intact teeth with closed apexes [24], preferably multi-rooted teeth
or canines, are harvested as they have the largest DNA-containing
pulp cavities. Sampling fully charred or calcined teeth is highly
ineffective [25].
7. Conclusion
The presented method for the post mortem collection of
samples of muscle and bone tissue, bone marrow and teeth for
DNA-analysis provides highly informative genotyping results, with
a minimal risk of contamination during collection and sampling of
the post mortem tissues. This is illustrated by the performance of
our method during the identification of the victims of the MH17
airplane crash in which 4958, mostly heavily damaged, decom-
posed and commingled body parts were sampled and analysed for
DNA. 98,2% of the collected PM samples provided the MH17 DVI
team with highly informative DNA genotyping results. The method
is quick, easy to learn and easy to use and requires only generally
available, inexpensive instruments and consumables and can be
adapted in almost any DVI scenario. The method is also applicable
outside a DVI context, e.g. in forensic identification cases with only
one or several casualties.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the staff of the Dutch DVI team (Landelijk
Team Forensische Opsporing, LTFO) and of the DNA laboratory of
the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI). Photographer Eelco Roos
of the Dept. of Pathology of the Academic Medical Center (AMC) is
acknowledged for the photographs.
References
[1] M.A. Jobling, P. Gill, Encoded evidence: DNA in forensic analysis, Nat. Rev.
Genet. 5 (10) (2004) 739.
[2] L. Roewer, DNA fingerprinting in forensics: past, present, future, Invest. Genet.
4 (1) (2013) 22.
[3] L.G. Biesecker, et al., DNA identifications after the 9/11 World Trade Center
attack, Science 310 (5751) (2005) 1122–1123.
[4] D. Hartman, et al., The contribution of DNA to the disaster victim identification
(DVI) effort, Forensic Sci. Int. 205 (1) (2011) 52–58.
[5] M.M. Holland, et al., Development of a quality, high throughput DNA analysis
procedure for skeletal samples to assist with the identification of victims from
the World Trade Center attacks, Croat. Med. J. 44 (3) (2003) 264–272.
[6] K. Montelius, B. Lindblom, DNA analysis in disaster victim identification,
Forensic Sci. Med. Pathol. 8 (2) (2012) 140–147.
[7] B. Olaisen, M. Stenersen, B. Mevåg, Identification by DNA analysis of the
victims of the August 1996 Spitsbergen civil aircraft disaster, Nat. Genet. 15 (4)
(1997) 402–405.
[8] Identification, I.W.G.o.D.V., Interpol Disaster Victim Identification Guide,
Interpol, Lyon, France, 2014.
[9] J.M. Butler, Advanced Topics in Forensic DNA Typing: Methodology, Academic
Press, 2011.
[10] group, I.D.m.e. Interpol Handbook on DNA Data Exchange and Practice:
Recommendations from the Interpol DNA Monitoring Expert Group, 2009 12
September 2017. Available from: https://www.interpol.int/INTERPOL-exper-
tise/Forensics/DNA.
[11] Physicians, F.o.F.L.M.o.t.R.C.o., Recommendations for the Collection of Forensic
Specimens from Complainants and Suspects, 2017.
[12] M. Prinz, et al., 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 (1) (2007) 3–12.
[13] A.Z. Mundorff, E.J. Bartelink, E. Mar-Cash, DNA preservation in skeletal
elements from the World Trade Center disaster: recommendations for mass
fatality management, J. Forensic Sci. 54 (4) (2009) 739–745.
[14] A.A. Westen, R.R. Gerretsen, G.J. Maat, Femur, rib, and tooth sample collection
for DNA analysis in disaster victim identification (DVI), Forensic Sci. Med.
Pathol. 4 (1) (2008) 15–21.
[15] F. Brito, et al., Evaluation of the urinary bladder swabs as a source of DNA for
human identification using two different extraction methods, Forensic Sci. Int.
Genet. Suppl. Ser. 5 (2015) e484–e486.
 H.H. de Boer et al. / Forensic Science International 289 (2018) 253–259
[16] S.T. Ferreira, et al., Cartilage and phalanges from hallux: alternative sources of
samples for DNA typing in disaster victim identification (DVI). A comparative
study, Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. Suppl. Ser. 4 (1) (2013) e366–e367.
[17] S.T. Ferreira, et al., A comparative study between muscle, cartilage and swab
from inside the urinary bladder samples for DNA typing of severely burnt
bodies in disaster victim identification (DVI), Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. Suppl.
Ser. 5 (2015) e617–e618.
[18] R. Owen, et al., Post mortem sampling of the bladder for the identification of
victims of fire related deaths, Forensic Sci. Int. 233 (1) (2013) 14–20.
[19] B.M. Kemp, D.G. Smith, Use of bleach to eliminate contaminating DNA from the
surface of bones and teeth, Forensic Sci. Int. 154 (1) (2005) 53–61.
[20] A.M. Prince, L. Andrus, PCR: how to kill unwanted DNA, Biotechniques 12 (3)
(1992) 358–360.
259
[21] A. Mundorff, J. Davoren, S. Weitz, Developing an empirically based ranking
order for bone sampling: Examining the differential DNA yield rates between
human skeletal elements over increasing post mortem intervals. Final
Technical Report 2010-DN-BX-K229, 2013.
[22] T. Parsons, V. Weedn, Preservation and Recovery of DNA in Postmortem
Specimens and Trace Samples, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1997, pp. 109–138.
[23] T. Schwark, et al., Reliable genetic identification of burnt human remains,
Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 5 (5) (2011) 393–399.
[24] D. Higgins, J.J. Austin, Teeth as a source of DNA for forensic identification of
human remains: a review, Sci. Justice 53 (4) (2013) 433–441.
[25] J.A. Garriga, D.H. Ubelaker, S.C. Zapico, Evaluation of macroscopic changes and
the efficiency of DNA profiling from burnt teeth, Sci. Justice 56 (6) (2016) 437–
442.
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.