C&EN logo The Newsmagazine of the Chemical World
Home Current Issue ChemJobs Join ACS
Latest News
Government & Policy
Careers and Employment
ACS News
How to log in
Contact Us
Site Map
About C&EN
About the Magazine
How to Subscribe
How to Advertise

Latest News RSS Feed

latest news RSS feedWhat is this?

Join ACS
Join ACS
  Latest News  
  January 17,  2005
Volume 83, Number 3
p. 15


  Sorting Out Sperm Cells
Microfluidic device could speed analysis of sexual assault evidence

CELL SORTER A simple microfluidic device separates sperm cells from epithelial cells by allowing the epithelial cells to settle in the first reservoir and then using pressure-driven flow to sweep the sperm cells into the second reservoir.

A simple microfluidic method could substantially decrease the time required to prepare samples for forensic analysis of sexual assault evidence [Anal. Chem., 77, 742 (2005)]. Faster sample preparation could help eliminate the backlog of such evidence waiting to be analyzed.

Current methods to prepare sexual assault evidence for analysis are based on a process called differential extraction. This technique relies on the ability of sperm cells (from the perpetrator) to survive chemical conditions that rupture the membranes of other cells (primarily epithelial cells from the victim). It is applied to the evidence still on the cotton swab used for collection.

Chemist James P. Landers and his coworkers at the University of Virginia take a different approach: Sort the cells before rupturing any. They have developed a microfluidic device that exploits the physical differences between the two types of cells to separate them.

The simple device consists of two reservoirs connected by a channel. The epithelial cells (cheek cells in the demonstration samples) settle to the bottom of the inlet reservoir, which takes four to five minutes. Then, a pressure-induced flow sweeps the sperm cells into the second reservoir. The separated cells can then go through normal DNA analysis.

Landers must address a number of issues before the method could become practical for real forensic samples. His team is finding that desorption of the cells from the cotton swabs could be an issue. In addition, because cells can rupture while the samples are dry during storage, free DNA in the samples could be another concern, which may have to be addressed by chromatography.

Susan Greenspoon, a forensic molecular biologist with the Virginia Division of Forensic Science, says that "the device is not yet up to the level of performance we can obtain using either semiautomated robotic or manual differential extraction." But she believes that, with further development, it "has real potential to supplant our current methods."

  Chemical & Engineering News
ISSN 0009-2347
Copyright © 2005

E-mail this article
to a friend
Print this article
E-mail the editor