Most labs rely on their extraction instruments without stopping to ask whether they’re performing as expected. Laila Mansour did ask — and what she found had implications not just for her own lab at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, but for any lab running casework on aging equipment.
Mansour’s research compared DNA yields from two commonly used automated extraction systems: the QIACube and the EZ1. The study began with a specific concern — unexpectedly low yields from their lab’s EZ1 — and evolved into a structured comparison involving a second EZ1 instrument at the NYC Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. The result clarified something important: the problem wasn’t the platform.
Mansour presented her poster at ISHI 36 as a Promega Student Ambassador. We sat down with her to talk through the research, the troubleshooting that shaped it, and what she wants labs to take away.
What sparked this research, and what have you found so far?
The question grew out of something Mansour was already observing in the lab. The QIACube was the instrument used most heavily — in coursework and in research — but the EZ1 was also available. When initial runs showed a drop in yield from the EZ1, the question became whether that gap was meaningful.
“We noticed that our lab had two DNA extraction instruments, the QIACube and EZ1, but the QIACube was primarily used, especially in coursework. We were curious if there was any significant difference between the extraction capabilities of the two instruments. In initial runs, we noticed a significantly decreased quantity of extracted DNA from the EZ1, which was cause for concern considering the EZ1 is the extraction instrument utilized by the NYC OCME.”
To isolate the variable, her team ran samples against two EZ1 instruments — their own and the OCME’s — alongside the QIACube. The finding pointed to instrument condition rather than chemistry: their EZ1 was in decline.
“As suspected, the low yields for our EZ1 seemed to be due to decline in instrument function, as the EZ1 at the OCME yielded quantities statistically similar to that of the QIACube.”
What does this mean for labs beyond the yield numbers?
Mansour is direct about why the question matters at a systems level. DNA extraction isn’t just a technical step — it’s a gateway to everything that follows, and performance assumptions about instruments can quietly affect casework outcomes.
“The quality and quantity of extracted DNA from biological evidence influence the success rates for DNA analysis in criminal investigations. Therefore, evaluating DNA extraction methods is essential for achieving optimal DNA recovery. More generally, validating protocols and instrumentation is a vital part of forensic methodology. Ensuring labs are utilizing the most efficient and accurate instrumentation is crucial to ensuring justice.”
Her research also surfaced a practical funding and maintenance argument: an instrument that appears to be functioning may simply be functioning poorly. Getting that on record creates grounds for repair requests.
What was unexpectedly challenging in the process?
Research on instrumentation comes with its own category of troubleshooting — the instruments themselves become variables. For Mansour, that became a lesson in how much precision the process requires.
“There was definitely a lot of unexpected troubleshooting involved for the instruments. There was one period that the QIACube was not functioning properly, and it was all because the calibration of the arm used to pick up the pipette tips was slightly off. Experiences like that definitely solidified the importance of every detail.”
The delays that followed a single miscalibration reinforced something she’d observed across the project: the margin for error in extraction workflows is narrow, and equipment condition has downstream consequences that aren’t always visible until something goes wrong.
What do you want someone to walk away from your poster knowing?
Her answer is straightforward — and it’s less about her specific findings than about the habit of inquiry behind them.
“The major takeaway I want people to have from my poster is to question and test everything. Questioning protocols and instruments not only breeds innovation but also ensures that we are maximizing the outcomes of investigations.”
What’s the next research question you’re working on?
Mansour is already applying the methodological approach from this project to a different problem. She’s working on a forensic botany study focused on developing genetic profiles for plant species identification — an area she sees as underutilized in the field.
“I’m currently working on a forensic botany project in which we’re working on developing genetic profiles for different plants for species identification. It has been interesting to bring the knowledge from this project to a different application, especially an application that could have a significant impact in the forensic DNA world.”
She’s also weighing whether to go directly into a PhD program or enter the field first — a decision she describes as still in progress, with a clear direction either way toward laboratory or academic work in forensic science.
For a student still working toward her graduate degree, the research demonstrates something the forensic community tends to reward: a willingness to slow down, ask the obvious question, and follow it through. The instruments most labs take for granted turned out to be worth a second look.