Researchers have come out with a new bioassay that could possibly distinguish the ethnicity of possible suspects or missing persons based on DNA left at a crime scene.
Creatine kinase and lactate dehydrogenase were the two biomarkers looked at in Caucasians and African Americans. The levels were amplified using multienzyme/multistep biocatalytic cascade to distinguish the differences in the levels for the two ethnicities. They tested these levels on fresh blood and age 24-hour blood. The results showed conclusive differences.
What does this mean for crime scene analysts? It is a quicker way to get a possible identification of a suspect while waiting for the DNA to go through CODIS at an outside lab, which could take months.
This technique seems to have its pros and cons. Although it is a good preliminary test, what if the suspect is neither ethnicity or a mixture of both (like me)? Also, this has only been tested on blood, but do you think it should automatically work on any type of DNA left behind?
A Biochemical Eyewitness
I think they may be doing preliminary studies on Caucasians and African Americans. Maybe they plan on comparing other ethnicities after they have mastered comparing these two. I was just wondering how this technique would affect mixed ethnicities. Not just with black or white, but mutliple ethnicities.
ReplyDeleteThat's the same thing I was wondering since mixed ethnicities are very common now. I just used the example of black and white to keep within the lines of their research.
DeleteThe same question of mixed races came into my head as well. Like you said this type of testing is still new so through more testing they may be able to determine if a person is of mixed race or not.
ReplyDeleteMakes you wonder what sides traits we show?!
DeleteThese kinds of tests always strike me as strange. Only a small portion of the variation in humans exists between populations (and these "populations represent major geographical demes)...like 3-5% (See Rosenberg et al. 2002). While certainly some of this 3-5% variation is in some sense trackable, and diagnostic in sort of a probabilistic way, one needs to be careful to refrain from equating "race" as a social construct with "race" as a meaningful biological entity. You all bring up important points in this regard...most people in fact represent admixtures of genetic pools from different geographical ranges; we can only expect admixture to increase as humans become more mobile.
ReplyDeleteMy concern always is that many people (even those who aren't in any sense racist) conflate race/ethnicity, the social construct, with race as some kind of genetically coherent group. I think scientists should avoid talking about ethnicities or race when describing the latter, because it only contributes to confusion.
Nice post, Mariah!
Thanks! I was definitely surprised by this research especially due to like you said, a good amount of people have some sort of ethnic mixture. This research just seemed so cut and dry when it came to representing the population and its diversity.
Delete