dnatrack is a work in progress — updates ship daily. Report a bug or request a feature →

A Comparative Study for the Isolation of Exogenous Trace DNA from Fingernails

FSI Genetics, 2018

Study Design

Addressed Question

comparison of the efficiency and value of information resulting from three different sampling methods for foreign DNA from fingernail clippings

Activity Context

AssaultScratchingSexual Contact

Category

Recovery

Specifications

DNA ProfilingSampling

Variables of Interest

Sampling Method

Stringency of Control

Controlled

Number of Individuals

2

Replicates per Individual and Condition

17

Nucleic Acid

DNAY-Chromosome

Bodily Origin

fingernailssweattrace

Depositor & Contact

Depositor Characteristics

female fingernail depositor, male sweat depositor

Criteria for Shedder Status

N/A

Previous Activities

female: showering and vigorous washing with soap, clipping of fingernails with new fingernail clipper; male: showering, running

Contact Scenario

addition of 5µl of male sweat to the underside of one fingernail - drying - division into three groups - sampling

Primary Substrate

Primary Substrate Type

body part: female fingernails

Primary Substrate Material

Skin and Nail

Deposit

5 µl of male sweat (approx. 0.6 ng male DNA)

Delay

N/A

Secondary Substrate

Secondary Substrate Type

N/A

Secondary Substrate Material

N/A

Secondary Substrate Contact

N/A

Further Transfer

N/A

Sampling

Background DNA on Sampled Surface

Present

Sampling Time

delayed

Persistence

air-drying at room temperature for approx. 3 weeks

Sampling Method

Swabbing (tapered mini cotton tipped 3-inch applicators (Puritan), moistened with 20 µl PBS), PBS soak (150 µl PBS for 1 h at 4°C), PrepFiler lysis buffer soak (300 µl PrepFiler lysis buffer, 1 h at room temperature)

Sampling Area

1 fingernail clipping

Laboratory Analysis

Extraction

PrepFiler DNA extraction using Tecan HIDEV0150 liquid handling robot, final volume: 18 µl

DNA Quantification

Quantifiler Trio quantitation kit

Input for Profiling

1 ng (or 15 µl if 1 ng not available)

Profiling

GlobalFiler PCR amplification kit (29 cycles), 3500 genetic Analyzer CE, GeneMapper IDX v1.4 software, dye-specific analytical threshold (68-150 rfu), stochastic threshold: 855 rfu;

Reference Samples

taken from depositors and their consensual partners

Profile Interpretation and Mixture Analysis

STRmix v2.4 analysis (prior conversion of GeneMapper tables using a self-devised excel sheet that addresses double stutter peaks); assumption of the presence of the female contributor and calculation of the LR for the male contributor (determination of the number of contributors after close evaluation of profiles)

RNA Data Interpretation

N/A

Results

DNA Quantity

male DNA: 0.0683-0.1050 ng

Profile Quality

10 up to 50% male profile contribution, degradation observed (highest for female profile in lysis buffer soaked samples)

Parameter Used for Comparison

total male DNA, male DNA contribution, male:female mixture proportion, degradation (small vs. Large fragment after quantitation and determined from epg by STRmix), avg. Number of foreign alleles, average male LR

Summary of Results

total male DNA recovery: swabbed, lysis buffer soaked > PBS soaked samples; male to total DNA ratio: swabbed > PBS soaked > lysis buffer soaked samples; avg. Mixture proportion female:male (comparable results after determination from quantitation and from epg): PBS soaked ~60:40, lysis buffer soaked ~90:10, swabbed samples ~50:50; degradation (measured from Quantifiler): lysis buffer soaked >> PBS soaked > swabbed samples; degradation (measured from epg by STR mix): lysis buffer soaked (female profile)>> swabbed samples > PBS soaked, lysis buffer soaked male; avg. Number of foreign alleles: swabbed samples, lysis buffer soaked samples > PBS soaked samples; avg. LR for male contributor: swabbed samples > lysis buffer soaked > PBS soaked samples; despite thorough cleaning and showering, contamination from participants consensual partners was detected in 10/51 profiles (not considered during the comparison of DNA quantities); in these samples, it was observed that setting the number of contributors correctly is essential for obtaining correct results from STRmix and can be difficult especially when allele sharing, stutter and low rfus are present; Conclusion: the swabbing method is most effective at removing foreign DNA from fingernails while at the same time not co-sampling too much endogenous DNA from the fingernails

Raised Questions

further investigation into the persistence of consensual partner's DNA and the influence on the probative value of fingernail evidence

Cautionary Remarks

deposited male biological material (sweat) does not represent the biological material that would be expected under female fingernails after cohabitation with a consensual partner or scratching