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

An inter-laboratory comparison study on transfer, persistence and recovery of DNA from cable ties.

FSI Genetics, 2017

Study Design

Addressed Question

Differences in DNA recovery, profile reportability and analysis between four different laboratories

Activity Context

Professional

Category

Primary DepositRecovery

Specifications

DNA ProfilingExtractionIndividual CharacteristicsPrevious ActivitiesSampling

Variables of Interest

laboratoriesmethods of analysis and evaluation of results

Stringency of Control

Close to Realistic

Number of Individuals

20, 4 laboratories

Replicates per Individual and Condition

1

Nucleic Acid

DNA

Bodily Origin

skin (hands)

Depositor & Contact

Depositor Characteristics

10 men, 10 women

Criteria for Shedder Status

N/A

Previous Activities

normal activities (recorded)

Contact Scenario

precleaning of pencils (not cable ties) - tying of two pencils by one cable by test individual - individual packaging of pencils per individuals - transfer to 4 different labs - sampling - evaluation of results based on each lab's individual guidelines - evaluation of results based on Lab1 guidelines

Primary Substrate

Primary Substrate Type

cable ties

Primary Substrate Material

Plastic

Deposit

tying together two pencils

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

packaging and transport: varying between 51 and 261 days

Sampling Method

1) wet (water) cotton swabbing 2,3,4) wet+dry cotton double swabbing (water or NaCl)

Sampling Area

1,4) whole cable tie (except part touching pens) 2) head and part of the tail 3) part of the cable ties only sampled partially

Laboratory Analysis

Extraction

1) robotic QIAamp isolation 2) manual Chelex 3) manual Qiagen EZ1 4) manual DNA IQ system

DNA Quantification

1) Inhouse ALU assay 2) Quantifiler HP 3) Quantifiler Duo 4) Quantifiler Trio

Input for Profiling

1) 0.45-0.6 ng or 8 µl 2) 0.6-0.7ng or 17.5 µl 3) 1ng or 10 µl 4) 0.5 ng or 15 µl

Profiling

1) NGM 29 cycles 2)Powerplex ESC 16 Fast system, 30 cycles 3) NGM select, 29 cycles 4) Powerplex 21 system 30 cycles, 1,2) 3130XL, threshold 50 rfu 3,4) 3500XL, threshold: 175 rfu

Reference Samples

taken from all handlers

Profile Interpretation and Mixture Analysis

reportability of DNA profiles, exclusion of reference profile donors as potential contributors, contribution (major, minor, absent) of reference profile donor determined based on laboratory-specific guidelines as well as re-analyzed by laboratory 1

RNA Data Interpretation

N/A

Results

DNA Quantity

0-10.8 ng

Profile Quality

reportable profiles obtained in 75%, handler always single or major contributor

Parameter Used for Comparison

DNA yield, % reportable profiles according to lab guidelines; % reportable profiles according to Lab1 guidelines; profile composition (single, mixed, not reportable)

Summary of Results

significant difference in quantification values between the four labs, likely reasons: sampling approach (sampling area), quantification methods, unlikely reasons: time since deposition, single vs. Double swabbing method; number of not reportable profiles varying from 0-55% depending on laboratory, amplification technique (single amplification, multiple amplification or low template techniques); higher DNA yields result in higher % reportable profiles; sampling techniques and amplification methods play a higher role than assessment methods (assessment by Lab1 only changed % reportable profiles for Lab2 from 75 to 85%); handler of cable ties identified as single or major contributor in 77.5% (all reportable profiles); the proportion of mixed DNA profiles varied among labs; reported individual's activities did not give an explanation to the presence of more or less foreign DNA; total amount of DNA in sample inversely related to number of contributors; high degree of within and between handler variation, some general tendencies observed for some donors; reported individual's activities did not give an explanation to extreme values; higher shedding amounts from men not significant; different forensic science laboratories may provide different results based on the data generated in their lab but are minor when applied to a BN reporting activity level issues

Raised Questions

studies to determine accurate efficiency factors of commonly used collection devices, methods and extraction methods to enable the application of correction factors and comparison of data from different studies; more studies in collaborative settings

Cautionary Remarks

study design does not allow for an in depth analysis of individual factors impacting the outcome; different evaluation parameters for the reportability of profiles not stated