TY - JOUR

T1 - Enzymatic maceration of bone

T2 - a gentler technique than boiling

AU - Uhre, Marie-Louise

AU - Eriksen, Anne Marie

AU - Simonsen, Kim Pilkjær

AU - Rasmussen, Arne Redsted

AU - Hjort, Benjamin Benn

AU - Lynnerup, Niels

PY - 2015/4

Y1 - 2015/4

N2 - This proof of concept study investigates the removal of soft tissue from human ribs with the use of two common methods: boiling with a laundry detergent and using enzymes. Six individuals were autopsied, and one rib from each individual was removed for testing. Each rib was cut into pieces and afterwards macerated by one of the two methods. DNA extraction was performed to see the effect of the macerations on DNA preservation. Furthermore, the bone pieces were examined in a stereomicroscope to assess for any bone damage. The results demonstrated that both methods removed all flesh/soft tissue from the bones. The DNA analysis showed that DNA was preserved on all the pieces of bones which were examined. Finally, the investigation suggests that enzyme maceration could be gentler on the bones, as the edges appeared less frayed. The enzyme maceration was also a quicker method; it took three hours compared with the traditional method which took about 24 hours. However, a more standardised study should be performed to confirm this.

AB - This proof of concept study investigates the removal of soft tissue from human ribs with the use of two common methods: boiling with a laundry detergent and using enzymes. Six individuals were autopsied, and one rib from each individual was removed for testing. Each rib was cut into pieces and afterwards macerated by one of the two methods. DNA extraction was performed to see the effect of the macerations on DNA preservation. Furthermore, the bone pieces were examined in a stereomicroscope to assess for any bone damage. The results demonstrated that both methods removed all flesh/soft tissue from the bones. The DNA analysis showed that DNA was preserved on all the pieces of bones which were examined. Finally, the investigation suggests that enzyme maceration could be gentler on the bones, as the edges appeared less frayed. The enzyme maceration was also a quicker method; it took three hours compared with the traditional method which took about 24 hours. However, a more standardised study should be performed to confirm this.

U2 - 10.1177/0025802414532246

DO - 10.1177/0025802414532246

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 24812061

VL - 55

SP - 90

EP - 96

JO - Medicine, Science and the Law

JF - Medicine, Science and the Law

SN - 0025-8024

IS - 2

ER -