DNA Extraction Methods in Forensic Analysis: Purity, Sensitivity, and Contamination Control

Forensic DNA extraction converts biological evidence into a template suitable for short tandem repeat (STR) profiling, mitochondrial DNA analysis, or massively parallel sequencing. The method selected determines sensitivity, purity, and contamination risk, and no single extraction chemistry performs optimally across all sample types. This article compares organic, silica column, and magnetic bead extraction methods used in forensic casework, with attention to degraded skeletal remains, trace DNA, powder-coated evidence, and contaminated substrates. Validation requirements and quality control measures are addressed for laboratory students, technicians, researchers, and diagnostic professionals.

Scope of Forensic DNA Extraction

DNA extraction in forensic casework differs from clinical or research extraction in several important ways. Evidence samples are often limited in quantity, degraded by environmental exposure, or mixed with inhibitors that interfere with downstream amplification. The extraction method must recover sufficient DNA for profiling while removing substances that inhibit polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The method must also minimize contamination risk, because the evidentiary value of a DNA profile depends on the certainty that the DNA originated from the evidence instead of from laboratory personnel, reagents, or prior samples.

Forensic DNA testing encompasses sample collection, DNA extraction, PCR amplification, STR allele separation and sizing, typing and profile interpretation, statistical analysis, and quality assurance, as described in the Cold Spring Harbor Protocols overview of forensic DNA testing [11]. Each step in this workflow affects the reliability of the final profile. Extraction is the first point at which the laboratory can control DNA quantity, purity, and contamination, making method selection and validation critical decisions.

The choice of extraction method also depends on the downstream analytical platform. Laboratories performing capillary electrophoresis-based STR typing require DNA fragments within a specific size range, while laboratories using massively parallel sequencing may benefit from methods that recover shorter fragments from degraded samples. The INTERPOL review of forensic biology and DNA from 2023 to 2025 identifies DNA processing and STR typing as active areas of method development, with emerging technologies expanding the range of samples that can be successfully analyzed [17].

Core Principles of DNA Extraction

All DNA extraction methods share the same fundamental goals: release DNA from cells, separate DNA from cellular debris and inhibitors, and concentrate the DNA into a volume compatible with downstream analysis. The three main approaches used in forensic laboratories are organic extraction, silica-based solid-phase extraction, and magnetic bead separation.

Organic extraction uses phenol and chloroform to partition DNA into an aqueous phase while proteins and lipids remain in the organic phase. This method has been used for decades and remains effective for challenging samples. A comparison of five DNA extraction methods on degraded human skeletal remains found that organic extraction by phenol, chloroform, and isoamyl alcohol performed best in terms of both quantification and DNA profile results [12]. The method is labor-intensive and requires careful handling of hazardous chemicals, but it can recover DNA from samples that resist other extraction approaches.

Silica-based methods bind DNA to a silica surface in the presence of chaotropic salts. DNA binds to the silica matrix, contaminants are washed away, and purified DNA is eluted in a low-salt buffer. Silica columns are available in manual and automated formats. Silica in suspension has been identified in the literature as the best method for recovering small DNA fragments often present in degraded samples [12]. The QIAamp DNA Investigator Kit and QIAamp DNA Micro Kit are examples of silica column methods used in forensic laboratories [9].

Magnetic bead methods use paramagnetic particles coated with silica or other DNA-binding surfaces. DNA binds to the beads, the beads are captured with a magnet, and contaminants are removed through washing steps. Magnetic bead methods are easily automated and are widely used in forensic laboratories. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of DNA extraction methods for human hard tissue found that solid-phase magnetic bead and resin methods were associated with statistically significant higher DNA profiling success [6]. The DNA IQ System and PrepFiler kits are examples of magnetic bead methods used in forensic casework [7].

At a Glance: Comparison of Forensic DNA Extraction Methods

The table above summarizes general characteristics of the three main extraction approaches. Specific kit performance varies by sample type, and laboratories should evaluate methods against their own casework samples during validation.

Organic Extraction Methods

Organic extraction remains a reference method in forensic DNA analysis, particularly for challenging samples such as bone and teeth. The method involves digesting the sample with proteinase K, extracting with phenol and chloroform to remove proteins, and precipitating DNA with ethanol or isopropanol.

A study comparing five DNA extraction protocols on 25 degraded skeletal remains found that organic extraction by phenol, chloroform, and isoamyl alcohol was the best performing method in terms of both quantification and DNA profile results [12]. The study included humerus, ulna, tibia, femur, and petrous bone samples and evaluated five quantification parameters and five DNA profile parameters. Organic extraction outperformed silica columns, a commercial bone extraction kit, and an automated magnetic bead method in this comparison.

The main advantage of organic extraction is its ability to recover DNA from heavily degraded or inhibitor-laden samples. The method can be modified to increase yield from challenging samples. However, organic extraction requires the use of hazardous chemicals, is difficult to automate, and involves multiple manual steps that increase contamination risk. Laboratories using organic extraction must implement rigorous quality control measures to ensure that reagents are free of contaminating DNA and that samples are not cross-contaminated during processing.

For hard tissue samples, the choice of extraction method should be based on available sample, degradation state, and targeted genotyping method [13]. A comparison of an ancient DNA extraction protocol with a forensic bone extraction method found that the forensic method produced an overall increased gain of DNA when enough tissue was available, while the ancient DNA protocol showed improved efficiency for retrieving shorter DNA fragments beneficial when highly degraded DNA is present [13].

Silica Column Extraction Methods

Silica column extraction uses a membrane or resin that binds DNA in the presence of chaotropic salts. The method is available in manual and automated formats and is widely used in forensic laboratories because of its ability to remove PCR inhibitors and recover DNA from low-quantity samples.

The QIAamp DNA Investigator Kit demonstrated the highest recovery at low DNA amounts in a comparison of five extraction kits, which is particularly beneficial for minute forensic samples [16]. The same study found large differences in DNA recovery between the different extraction kits, emphasizing the importance of kit selection for forensic casework.

Silica column methods are effective for a range of forensic samples, including blood, saliva, and touch DNA. A study evaluating DNA extraction methods for fingerprint powder-coated evidence found that the PrepFiler method, which uses silica-based chemistry, extracted higher yields of DNA compared to Chelex and accounted for better quality DNA profiles [7]. The study tested 23 fingerprint powders and found that magnetic fingerprint powders produced more DNA profiles when extracted with the PrepFiler chemistry [7].

For decomposed human soft tissues, a modified silica column protocol with chilled ethanol pretreatment and surfactant-based lysis significantly increased DNA yield across most tissue types and postmortem stages [21]. The combined protocol with ethanol pretreatment and alternative buffers improved DNA recovery and purity, and STR analysis demonstrated reduced mismatch, drop-in, and drop-out rates and higher peak heights across most tissues [21].

Magnetic Bead Extraction Methods

Magnetic bead extraction uses paramagnetic particles that bind DNA under specific buffer conditions. The beads are captured with a magnet, allowing efficient washing and elution. This method is highly automatable and is increasingly used in forensic laboratories for high-throughput casework.

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of DNA extraction methods for human hard tissue found that solid-phase magnetic bead and resin methods were associated with statistically significant higher DNA profiling success [6]. The review identified over 50 different DNA extraction methodologies from 175 articles and found that incorporating a demineralisation pre-step resulted in significantly higher profiling success [6]. For hard tissue type, bone outperformed teeth, and profiling success was comparable or higher in cancellous bone samples compared to dense cortical femur samples [6].

The DNA IQ System is a magnetic bead method that has been evaluated for various forensic sample types. In a study of fingerprint powder-coated evidence, the DNA IQ method was favorable for nonmagnetic fingerprint powders [7]. In a comparison of three DNA extraction methods tested on illicit drug-related powders, the DNA IQ System was one of the methods evaluated for its efficiency at removing drug-related powders for downstream processes [8].

Automated magnetic bead extraction systems have been developed for forensic applications. A study establishing a novel automated magnetic bead-based method for the extraction of DNA from a variety of forensic samples demonstrated the feasibility of this approach [30]. The EZ2 Connect Fx automated extraction method consistently generated higher DNA concentrations and greater amounts of amplifiable human DNA than the AutoMate Express method across all pretreatments in a study of ancient DNA recovery from a pre-Hispanic individual [15].

Sample Type Considerations

Skeletal Remains and Hard Tissue

DNA extraction from bone and teeth presents unique challenges because of the hard tissue matrix and the degradation that occurs post-mortem. The systematic literature review of DNA extraction methods for human hard tissue found that solid-phase magnetic bead and resin methods performed best, and that incorporating a demineralisation pre-step resulted in significantly higher profiling success [6]. Bone outperformed teeth in profiling success, and cancellous bone samples showed comparable or higher success rates than dense cortical femur samples [6].

Teeth, femur, and the petrous portion of temporal bone are the main samples used for genetic analysis of skeletal remains [18]. STR profiling and mitochondrial DNA are the gold standard markers for skeletal human identification, and silica-based methods are highlighted in extraction protocols [18]. Minimally destructive protocols that enhance high DNA yield are preferred [18].

The choice of extraction method for bone samples depends on the degradation state and the amount of sample available. Organic extraction performed best in a comparison of five methods on degraded skeletal remains [12], while magnetic bead methods showed higher profiling success in a meta-analysis of hard tissue extraction [6]. Laboratories should evaluate multiple methods against their own casework samples to determine the most effective approach.

Trace DNA and Touch Evidence

Trace DNA refers to small amounts of DNA deposited through skin contact, handling, or other indirect transfer. Fingermarks have become a potential source of DNA evidence, and successful DNA profiling from fingermarks depends on a complex interaction among biological, environmental, and analytical factors [20]. Donor shedding propensity, deposition pressure, substrate type, and evidence age were identified as major determinants of profiling success [20].

Extraction efficiency varies according to substrate characteristics and fingerprint enhancement methods [20]. A study evaluating DNA extraction methods for fingerprint powder-coated evidence found that the DNA IQ and PrepFiler methods extracted higher yields of DNA compared to Chelex, which also accounted for better quality DNA profiles [7]. The study highlighted the importance of screening DNA extraction chemistries for the type of fingerprint powder used, as there is not a single DNA extraction method that suits all fingerprint powder brands and properties [7].

Powder-Coated and Drug-Related Evidence

Illicit drug preparations can contain substances that interfere with downstream DNA analysis. A study comparing three DNA extraction methods tested on illicit drug-related powders found that the readily soluble dimethylsulfone did not interfere with any of the extraction methods at lower amounts, but increasing the amount to 400 mg reduced the relative DNA yields using the Microcon and Investigator methods [8]. The study was the first to compare efficiencies of DNA extraction methods from drug-related powders [8].

The choice of extraction method for powder-coated evidence should consider the chemical properties of the powder and its potential to inhibit PCR. Laboratories processing drug-related evidence should validate their extraction methods against the types of powders encountered in their casework.

Decomposed Soft Tissue

Decomposition causes extensive degradation of DNA in soft tissues, compromising downstream genetic profiling. A study optimizing DNA extraction from decomposed human soft tissues evaluated a modified protocol with chilled ethanol treatment and surfactant-based lysis conditions [21]. Ethanol pretreatment significantly increased DNA yield across most tissue types and postmortem stages, and the combined protocol with alternative buffers further improved DNA recovery and purity [21].

The study used 225 soft tissue samples from eight organs obtained from 30 forensic autopsy cases representing different postmortem stages [21]. STR analysis demonstrated reduced mismatch, drop-in, and drop-out rates and higher peak heights across most tissues with the modified protocols [21].

Contamination Control

Contamination is a critical concern in forensic DNA analysis because it can compromise the evidentiary value of a profile. Contamination can occur from laboratory personnel, reagents, equipment, or prior samples. The Laboratory Quality Management System Handbook from the World Health Organization provides guidance on quality management in laboratories, including contamination control measures [1].

The Laboratory Biosafety Manual from the World Health Organization addresses biosafety considerations relevant to forensic laboratories, including handling of biological materials and decontamination procedures [2]. Laboratories should implement biosafety measures appropriate for the types of samples processed.

Preventing DNA contamination in a forensic DNA laboratory requires a comprehensive approach that includes facility design, workflow separation, personnel practices, and reagent quality control [22]. The impact of DNA contamination of bone samples in forensic case analysis and anthropological research has been documented, highlighting the need for rigorous contamination control measures when processing skeletal remains [27].

Decontamination of equipment and work surfaces is an important component of contamination control. A study examining the ability of hydrogen peroxide plasma to remove DNA contamination found that performing hydrogen peroxide plasma treatment three times was as effective as ethylene-oxide gas treatment, with all DNA fragments decreasing to below 1/1,000 in DNA solution [23]. With STR and Y-STR typing, no alleles were detected for three hydrogen peroxide plasma treatments of control DNA using the original amount [23].

Molecular tags have been incorporated into DNA typing reactions to improve result interpretation and quality control. Molecular etches, which are synthetic oligonucleotides that serve as an internal molecular information management system, encode detailed sample information improving sample workflow history, tracking, contamination detection, and authenticity verification [26]. Validation studies demonstrate the robustness of molecular etches in genomic sequencing, making them a valuable quality tool for forensic DNA analysis [26].

Quality Control and Validation

Validation is the process of demonstrating that an extraction method performs as intended for its specified use. The Bioanalytical Method Validation Guidance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration provides a framework for validating analytical methods, including considerations for accuracy, precision, sensitivity, and reproducibility [4]. While this guidance is primarily intended for bioanalytical methods used in drug development, the principles of validation apply to forensic DNA extraction methods.

The Assay Guidance Manual from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences provides guidance on assay development and validation, including considerations for sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility [3]. These principles can be applied to forensic DNA extraction method validation.

Quality control and duplication for concordance in forensic DNA samples are important for interpretation in mixtures [24]. Duplicate extractions can help identify contamination or stochastic effects that may affect profile interpretation.

The INTERPOL review of forensic biology and DNA from 2023 to 2025 identified 70 guidance documents from 17 different organizations to assist in quality DNA testing [17]. These documents provide a framework for quality assurance in forensic DNA laboratories.

Validation Checklist

Laboratories validating a DNA extraction method for forensic casework should consider the following steps:

1. Define the intended use of the method, including sample types, expected DNA quantities, and downstream analytical platforms.
2. Evaluate sensitivity by extracting DNA from serial dilutions of known samples and determining the minimum input quantity that produces reliable profiles.
3. Assess purity by measuring DNA yield and evaluating the presence of PCR inhibitors through internal amplification controls.
4. Test reproducibility by extracting replicate samples across multiple runs and operators.
5. Evaluate contamination risk by processing negative controls and monitoring for the presence of extraneous DNA.
6. Compare the method against established methods using representative casework samples.
7. Document all validation data and establish acceptance criteria for routine use.

The NCBI Literature Resources provide access to the scientific literature on DNA extraction methods and validation approaches [5]. Laboratories should review published studies on extraction methods relevant to their casework types.

Records and Measurements

Accurate record keeping is essential for forensic DNA analysis. The Laboratory Quality Management System Handbook emphasizes the importance of documentation in laboratory quality management [1]. Records should include sample identification, extraction method, reagent lots, operator identification, dates, and quality control results.

DNA quantification is a critical measurement in forensic DNA analysis. Quantitative PCR is used to measure the amount of human DNA in an extract and to assess the presence of inhibitors. A study evaluating DNA extraction methods for forensic microbiome analyses used real-time quantitative PCR to estimate DNA yields from skin and saliva samples [9]. The PrepFiler and Maxwell kits showed the highest yields from the scalp and saliva, respectively [9].

Degradation index is another important measurement, particularly for degraded samples. The degradation index compares the quantity of small and large DNA targets and provides information about the extent of DNA fragmentation. A study comparing five DNA extraction methods on degraded skeletal remains analyzed five DNA quantification parameters, including small human target quantity, large human target quantity, human male target quantity, degradation index, and internal PCR control threshold [12].

DNA profile parameters are also recorded for quality assessment. These include the number of alleles with peak height higher than analytic and stochastic thresholds, average relative fluorescence units, heterozygous balance, and number of reportable loci [12]. These parameters provide information about the quality of the DNA profile and the reliability of the interpretation.

Common Failure Patterns

Several common failure patterns can occur in forensic DNA extraction. Understanding these patterns helps laboratories troubleshoot problems and improve success rates.

Low DNA yield can result from inefficient cell lysis, DNA loss during purification, or degradation of the sample. A study evaluating DNA recovery using different extraction kits and cotton swabs found large differences in DNA recovery between the different extraction kits [16]. The QIAamp DNA Investigator Kit demonstrated the highest recovery at low DNA amounts [16]. Swab comparison revealed variations in DNA recovery between swab manufacturers and between lots of the same swab brand, and DNA quantity was not clearly correlated with downstream DNA profile quality [16].

PCR inhibition can result from substances that co-purify with DNA during extraction. Inhibitors can be introduced from the sample itself, such as heme from blood or humic acids from soil, or from reagents used during extraction. A study of fingerprint powder-coated evidence found no signs of degradation or inhibition in the quantification data, indicating that samples returning low DNA yield were due to interference during DNA extraction and not PCR inhibition [7].

Contamination can result in the presence of extraneous DNA in the extract. Contamination can occur from laboratory personnel, reagents, equipment, or prior samples. The impact of DNA contamination of bone samples in forensic case analysis and anthropological research has been documented [27]. Laboratories should implement rigorous contamination control measures and monitor for contamination through negative controls.

Stochastic effects can occur when very low amounts of DNA are amplified, leading to allele dropout or drop-in. A review of DNA mixture analysis in forensic science discusses the challenges of low-template DNA and high-order mixtures that may involve missing alleles and unrelated alleles [10]. The advent of new methods for the separation and extraction of DNA from mixtures has extended the range of mixed samples that can be correctly analyzed [10].

Safety and Regulatory Context

Forensic DNA laboratories must comply with biosafety and quality management requirements. The Laboratory Biosafety Manual from the World Health Organization provides guidance on biosafety practices for laboratories handling biological materials [2]. This includes considerations for facility design, personal protective equipment, and decontamination procedures.

The Laboratory Quality Management System Handbook from the World Health Organization provides guidance on quality management in laboratories, including organization, personnel, equipment, and process control [1]. This handbook is applicable to forensic DNA laboratories seeking to implement or improve their quality management systems.

The Bioanalytical Method Validation Guidance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration provides a framework for validating analytical methods [4]. While this guidance is primarily intended for bioanalytical methods used in drug development, the principles of validation apply to forensic DNA extraction methods.

The INTERPOL review of forensic biology and DNA from 2023 to 2025 identified 70 guidance documents from 17 different organizations to assist in quality DNA testing [17]. These documents provide a framework for quality assurance in forensic DNA laboratories.

Professional Escalation Criteria

Laboratory personnel should escalate issues to supervisors or quality managers when certain conditions are observed. These include:

1. Negative controls showing detectable DNA, indicating contamination.
2. Extraction methods failing to produce expected DNA yields on control samples.
3. Unexplained shifts in quantification values or degradation indices.
4. Reagent lot changes that affect extraction performance.
5. Instrument malfunctions that may compromise extraction quality.
6. Discrepancies between duplicate extractions that cannot be explained by stochastic effects.

The Laboratory Quality Management System Handbook emphasizes the importance of corrective action when quality issues are identified [1]. Laboratories should have procedures in place for investigating and documenting quality issues.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the best DNA extraction method for forensic casework?

There is no single best method for all forensic casework. The choice of extraction method depends on sample type, degradation state, available sample quantity, and downstream analytical platform. Organic extraction performed best for degraded skeletal remains in one comparison [12], while magnetic bead methods showed higher profiling success in a meta-analysis of hard tissue extraction [6]. Laboratories should evaluate multiple methods against their own casework samples during validation.

How does sample degradation affect DNA extraction method selection?

Degraded samples contain DNA fragments that are shorter than those found in fresh samples. Methods that recover small fragments are beneficial for highly degraded DNA [13]. Silica in suspension has been identified as the best method for recovering small fragments often present in degraded samples [12]. The choice of extraction method needs to be based on available sample, degradation state, and targeted genotyping method [13].

What is the difference between organic and silica-based DNA extraction?

Organic extraction uses phenol and chloroform to partition DNA into an aqueous phase while proteins and lipids remain in the organic phase. Silica-based methods bind DNA to a silica surface in the presence of chaotropic salts. Organic extraction is labor-intensive but can recover DNA from challenging samples [12]. Silica-based methods are more easily automated and are widely used in forensic laboratories.

How can contamination be prevented during DNA extraction?

Contamination prevention requires a comprehensive approach that includes facility design, workflow separation, personnel practices, and reagent quality control [22]. Laboratories should process negative controls to monitor for contamination and implement decontamination procedures for equipment and work surfaces. Hydrogen peroxide plasma treatment has been shown to be effective for removing DNA contamination [23].

What is the role of DNA quantification in forensic extraction?

DNA quantification measures the amount of human DNA in an extract and assesses the presence of inhibitors. Quantitative PCR is used to estimate DNA yields and to calculate the degradation index [9]. Quantification data guide the amount of extract used for amplification and help interpret profile results.

How do extraction methods affect STR profiling success?

Extraction methods affect STR profiling success by determining the quantity and quality of DNA available for amplification. A study of fingerprint powder-coated evidence found that the DNA IQ and PrepFiler methods extracted higher yields of DNA compared to Chelex, which also accounted for better quality DNA profiles [7]. The systematic literature review of hard tissue extraction found that solid-phase magnetic bead and resin methods were associated with statistically significant higher DNA profiling success [6].

What validation is required for forensic DNA extraction methods?

Validation should demonstrate that an extraction method performs as intended for its specified use. The Bioanalytical Method Validation Guidance provides a framework for validating analytical methods [4]. Validation should include sensitivity, purity, reproducibility, contamination risk, and comparison against established methods using representative casework samples.

How should laboratories handle samples with PCR inhibitors?

Samples with PCR inhibitors require extraction methods that effectively remove inhibitory substances. Silica-based methods are generally effective at removing inhibitors. For decomposed soft tissues, a modified protocol with chilled ethanol pretreatment and surfactant-based lysis improved DNA recovery and purity [21]. Laboratories should validate extraction methods against the types of inhibitors encountered in their casework.

Related Diagnostic Guides

• DNA Extraction from Water Samples: Methods for Environmental DNA
• Quality Control Analysis: Methods for Monitoring Lab Performance
• Process Controls in DNA Extraction: Monitoring Yield and Purity
• DNA Extraction from Hair Follicles: Protocol for Forensic and Research Use
• DNA Extraction from Plant Tissues: CTAB and Kit-Based Methods

References and Further Reading

• Laboratory Quality Management System Handbook. World Health Organization.
• Laboratory Biosafety Manual. World Health Organization.
• Assay Guidance Manual. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.
• Bioanalytical Method Validation Guidance. U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
• NCBI Literature Resources. National Center for Biotechnology Information.
• Forensic DNA extraction methods for human hard tissue: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of technologies and sample type.. Forensic science international. Genetics, 2023.
• Evaluation of DNA Extraction Methods for Processing Fingerprint Powder-Coated Forensic Evidence.. Journal of forensic sciences, 2020.
• Comparison of three DNA extraction methods tested on illicit drug-related powders.. Forensic science international. Genetics, 2023.
• Optimization of DNA extraction and sampling methods for successful forensic microbiome analyses of the skin and saliva.. International journal of legal medicine, 2023.
• Separation/extraction, detection, and interpretation of DNA mixtures in forensic science (review).. International journal of legal medicine, 2018.
• Forensic DNA testing.. Cold Spring Harbor protocols, 2011.
• A comparison of five DNA extraction methods from degraded human skeletal remains.. Forensic science international, 2023.
• Evaluation of DNA Extraction Methods Developed for Forensic and Ancient DNA Applications Using Bone Samples of Different Age.. Genes, 2021.
• DNA Analysis in Forensic Odontology: Applications, Challenges, and Comparative Effectiveness With Morphological Identification.. 2026.
• Evaluation of AutoMate and EZ2 extraction methods with surface cleaning pretreatments for ancient DNA recovery from pre-Hispanic individual using STR and SNP analyses.. 2026.
• DNA Recovery Using Different Extraction Kits and Cotton Swabs in Forensic DNA Analysis.. 2026.
• INTERPOL Review of Forensic Biology and DNA, 2023-2025.. 2026.
• Genetic Identification of Human Skeletal Remains in Forensic Context: A Review.. 2026.
• Integrating Osteology and Ancient DNA: Cranial Variation, Hemoglobin S, and Paternal Lineage in a Roman-Period Individual from Anatolia. 2026.
• Fingermark as source of DNA: Systematic Review on Recovery and Factors affecting DNA Typing. 2026.
• Forensic DNA extraction from decomposed human soft tissues: Optimization using ethanol treatment and surfactant-based lysis conditions.. 2026.
• Preventing DNA contamination in a forensic DNA laboratory. 2007.
• Removal effect of DNA contamination by hydrogen peroxide plasma compared to ethylene-oxide gas.. Legal Medicine, 2021.
• Quality Control and Duplication for Concordance in Forensic DNA Samples: Implications for Interpretation in Mixtures. 2015.
• Genetic Profile Evaluation of Human Cell Lines Treated with Anastatica hierochuntica Using Forensic DNA Fingerprinting Markers. Arab Journal of Forensic Sciences & Forensic Medicine, 2021.
• A molecular framework for enhancing quality control and sample integrity in forensic genome sequencing.. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 2024.
• The impact of DNA contamination of bone samples in forensic case analysis and anthropological research.. Legal Medicine, 2008.
• Evaluating the performance of five up-to-date DNA/RNA co-extraction methods for forensic application. Forensic Science International, 2021.
• Preparing for shotgun sequencing in forensic genetics - Evaluation of DNA extraction and library building methods. Forensic Science International Genetics, 2025.
• Establishing a novel automated magnetic bead-based method for the extraction of DNA from a variety of forensic samples. Forensic Science International Genetics, 2012.

This article is educational and does not replace validated laboratory procedures, institutional biosafety review, manufacturer instructions, or professional interpretation.