Semenogelin is also expressed in non-genital tissues such as skeletal
muscle, kidney, colon, and so on (Lundwall et al. Semenogelin I and II, the
predominant human seminal plasma proteins, are also expressed in non-genital
tissues. Mol Hum Reprod 8(9): 805-610 (2002)), in the retina (Bonilha et al.
Characterization of semenogelin proteins in the human retina. Exp Eye Res
83(1):120-127 (2006)) and in lung carcinomas (Rodrigues et al. Semenogelins
are ectopically expressed in small cell lung carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 7:
854-860 (2001) and Berti et al. Expression of seminal vesicle-specific
antigen in serum of lung tumor patients. J Forensic Sci 50(5): 1114-1115
(2005)).
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Lloyd Scharf" <johnlloydscharf@yahoo.com>
To: <forensic-science@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 10:53 PM
Subject: [forensic-science] Re: Wording of Serology Reports
> So, would you say a negative AP test negates the need for the RSID-semen
> test, but a positive AP test calls for further testing with the
> RSID-semen test to be conclusive either way?
> "johnsonethan95" said "RSID test," which would be the blood test. Does
> the RSID test show positive for blood plasma alone? That also seems to
> be excreted from the Skene's gland.
> --- In forensic-science@yahoogroups.com, Donna Hansen <dhansen@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> Yes we can have semen without spermatozoa. It is those cases where we
> are looking for a test that would be specific for semen without sperm.
> Back in the day p30 was thought to be specific for semen, now p30 is
> found in other body fluids so therefore having a positive result for p30
> (without sperm) does not lend us to a conclusive result of semen. If
> you are testing a female's pair of underwear - it could be AP positive
> and since p30 is found in female urine the sample could also be p30
> positive. Reading up on the RSID-semen test where it is not testing for
> p30 but for semenogelin, which is specific for semen. I have not found
> any literature saying that semenogelin is found in other body fluids.
> Where we get AP positive those samples are then tested for the presence
> of sperm if no sperm is found than we conduct the RSID-semen test and it
> those results are positive we conclude Semen was detected on the item.
>>
>> From: forensic-science@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:forensic-science@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Lloyd Scharf
>> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 12:44 PM
>> To: forensic-science@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: [forensic-science] Re: Wording of Serology Reports
>>
>>
>>
>> I do not understand what you are saying. You are switching up terms,
>> although I have not seen documentation of false positives. Obviously,
>> you can have seminal fluid without spermatozoa. You can get Acid
>> Phosphatase (AP) positive with a female from the glands of Bartholin,
>> which are analogous to the Cowper's gland in the male, where AP is
>> excreted. The AP indicates sexual activity, but the gender of those
>> involved is not certain.
>> --- In
> forensic-science@yahoogroups.com<mailto:forensic-science%40yahoogroups.c\
> om>, Donna Hansen dhansen@
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Would you be able to share the information or location about the
> false
>> positives with the RSID- semen test.
>> >
>> > From:
> forensic-science@yahoogroups.com<mailto:forensic-science%40yahoogroups.c\
> om>
>>
> [mailto:forensic-science@yahoogroups.com<mailto:forensic-science%40yahoo\
> groups.com>] On Behalf Of johnsonethan95
>> > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 1:25 AM
>> > To:
> forensic-science@yahoogroups.com<mailto:forensic-science%40yahoogroups.c\
> om>
>> > Subject: [forensic-science] Re: Wording of Serology Reports
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > RSID test is no better. There is a fair amount of information on
> false
>> positives from RSID test. Seems like we have run out of options.
>> >
>> > --- In
>>
> forensic-science@yahoogroups.com<mailto:forensic-science%40yahoogroups.c\
> om><mailto:forensic-science%40yahoogroups.c\
>> om>, Donna Hansen dhansen@ wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I just wanted to say we were having the same issue with the semen
>> cassettes but we were getting false positives with our Seratec p30
> test
>> cassettes and were going to switch to the ABAcard. We ended up
> switching
>> to a semen specific test called RSID-Semen; it tests for the presence
> of
>> Semenogelin which is only found in semen (as its documentation states
>> now just like p30 was specific back in the day). As for your
> conclusion
>> - we basically conclude the same way except we say "Semen was or was
> not
>> detected on Item ....". Where Semen was positive but no spermatozoa
> were
>> detected - we included that information on our report "Semen was
>> detected but no spermatozoa were observed". I cannot really address
>> option 4 but we were close (before we started using RSID-Semen) to
> using
>> an inconclusive result.
>> > >
>> > > Do you do a preliminary color test i.e. acid phosphatase - if you
> do
>> are those results taking into consideration as to how you conclude
> your
>> semen result?
>> > >
>> > > From:
>>
> forensic-science@yahoogroups.com<mailto:forensic-science%40yahoogroups.c\
> om><mailto:forensic-science%40yahoogroups.c\
>> om>
>>
> [mailto:forensic-science@yahoogroups.com<mailto:forensic-science%40yahoo\
> groups.com><mailto:forensic-science%40yahoo\
>> groups.com>] On Behalf Of labgirl28
>> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 10:57 PM
>> > > To:
>>
> forensic-science@yahoogroups.com<mailto:forensic-science%40yahoogroups.c\
> om><mailto:forensic-science%40yahoogroups.c\
>> om>
>> > > Subject: [forensic-science] Wording of Serology Reports
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > My laboratory is on the cusp of revamping our Serology SOP and the
>> way that we word some of our serology testing on our final reports. I
>> know that the "word of the day" when it comes to ISO, which is where
>> most of us are headed, is TRANSPARENCY. Nothing would make me happier
>> and more comfortable as a forensic scientist to be able to go to
> court,
>> clearly state what tests were used, and openly show/explain their
>> limitations. Anyone that has read about the North Carolina debaucle
>> understands that a scientist's report, despite their best intentions
> AND
>> following proper protocol, can be grossly misinterpreted without them
>> personally being present to explain it and in turn, ruin their career
> in
>> forensics.
>> > > Anyhow, several of my coworkers are facing some resistance by
>> administration when it comes to how we report out semen testing and
> what
>> "weight" we give to these tests in regard to probative value. Let me
>> also say that we were getting false (+)'s with ABAcard psa on known
>> semen-free samples. Their was some discussion about temperature, pH,
> and
>> viscosity issues that could cause these results. Due to these issues,
> we
>> switched to Seratec's product. I will also state that our DNA section
>> does tell the end of the story many times by stating whether foreign
> DNA
>> is present in our swabbings and cuttings which is a small comfort to
> us
>> serologists, but that sometimes, the mere reporting of semen being
>> present is all it takes for a jury to convict, even if DNA is not
>> obtained. I am trying to poll other forensic laboratories to see how
> you
>> guys report out the following testing so that I can attend our next
>> brainstorming meeting with some possible suggestions:
>> > > 1) Spermatozoa identified
>> > > 2) No Spermatozoa identified, (+) p30 result
>> > > 3) No Spermatozoa identified, (-) p30 result
>> > > 4) No Spermatozoa identified, p30 result(test line intensity is
>> lighter than internal standard of 4 ng/mL)
>> > >
>> > > For 1), we currently write "Semen was identified on.....".
>> > > For 2), we currently write "Semen was identified on.....".
>> > > For 3), we currently write "No semen was found on....".
>> > > For 4), we currently write "Tests for the presence of semen were
>> inconclusive.".
>> > >
>> > > Sadly, our current protocol dictates that if our test line is (+)
> or
>> less intense than the internal standard, we must repeat the test with
>> another p30 card of the same lot # (I don't see this as sound
> scientific
>> practice). If the second test is also (+), we follow 1) wording as
>> above. If the second test is (-), we are told to write "No semen was
>> found on..." (I don't agree with this.) I know that Seratec is very
>> sensitive. The manufacturer clearly shows examples of fainter lines
>> being still interpreted as (+) for p30. I also know that the test
> line,
>> results being based on a bell curve of concentration, may be fainter
>> because there's low quantities of p30 OR very high quantities,
>> approaching the high-dose hook effect level which would give you a
> false
>> (-).
>> > > Do any other laboratories interpret these faint lines as anything
>> other than (+)? Does your lab call this (+) for p30, a component of
>> semen OR (+) for semen?
>> > >
>> > > Do your reports give disclaimers about p30 being found in low
> levels
>> of other body fluids?
>> > >
>> > > Lastly, does your laboratory consider p30 testing to be
>> sensitive/specific enough to be called a confirmatory test for semen?
>> Ours has for years and doesn't want to even consider backing off on
>> report wording to view it as presumptive, which many of us feel is
>> imperative. There was some talk of describing it as "indicitive," but
>> that is what the poor soul in North Carolina used and we all know how
>> that turned out for him! We're all of the "worst-case scenario"
> mindset
>> and fear one day, major consequences could befall our laboratory or us
>> analysts though we are following SOP as set forth and attempting to
>> remain subordinate to our superiors.
>> > > I know I've rambled for a lengthy spell here, but we've got a
> burden
>> on our shoulders that needs resolution. Misinterpretation of data is
> not
>> an acceptable answer for me. I don't see anywhere on Seratec's website
>> where they consider any type of line in the Test area to be anything
> but
>> (+). That is the bottom line. My signature on a laboratory report
> means
>> something to me and I don't want it to lose its value.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> To subscribe send a blank e-mail to:
> forensic-science-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank e-mail to:
> forensic-science-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Group home page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/forensic-science
> From the home page you can search the list archives. It also includes
> links to forensic science sites and allows you to modify your account
> settings.Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
To unsubscribe send a blank e-mail to: forensic-science-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Group home page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/forensic-science
From the home page you can search the list archives. It also includes links to forensic science sites and allows you to modify your account settings.
0 comments:
Post a Comment