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

Assessing the Risk of Secondary Transfer Via Fingerprint Brush Contamination Using Enhanced Sensitivity DNA Analysis Methods.

Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2016

Study Design

Addressed Question

Is secondary transfer via fingerprint brushes more likely detected when using LT-DNA methods?

Activity Context

Professional

Category

RecoveryTransfer Scenario

Specifications

DNA ProfilingTransfer via Vector

Variables of Interest

contamination procedure of fingerprint brushamplification method (standard, 31 cycles, injection time and post-PCR cleanup)

Stringency of Control

Controlled

Number of Individuals

2

Replicates per Individual and Condition

6

Nucleic Acid

DNA

Bodily Origin

skin (hands)

Depositor & Contact

Depositor Characteristics

N/A

Criteria for Shedder Status

N/A

Previous Activities

N/A

Contact Scenario

decontamination of all materials - (deposit of handprint on first transparency) - usage of brush on first handprint - deposit of second handprint - usage of brush on second handprint - sampling of second handprint

Primary Substrate

Primary Substrate Type

transparency or casework

Primary Substrate Material

Plastic

Deposit

handprint 3s or casework context

Delay

N/A

Secondary Substrate

Secondary Substrate Type

fingerprint brush

Secondary Substrate Material

N/A

Secondary Substrate Contact

brushing of handprint 6x 30-40s or one-time use in casework context

Further Transfer

using brush on 2nd hand deposit on transparency

Sampling

Background DNA on Sampled Surface

Negative (Confirmed)

Sampling Time

direct

Persistence

N/A

Sampling Method

swabbing

Sampling Area

latent print impression on transparency

Laboratory Analysis

Extraction

in house extraction protocol + Qiagen Bio Robot EZ1 purification

DNA Quantification

Plexor HY kit (Promega), ABI Prism 7500 sequence Detection System

Input for Profiling

set volume: 10 µl

Profiling

standard: Identifiler Plus, AB, 28 cycles; LCN: Identifiler Plus, AB 31 cycles in triplicates; + post PCR cleanup: MicroconYM-100 (Millipore); 3500 Genetic Analyzer (15s standard injection or 22s increased injection time); GeneMapper ID-X version 1; AT: 150 rfu, ST: 500 rfu

Reference Samples

buccal samples taken from all known depositors

Profile Interpretation and Mixture Analysis

assessing number of non-shared alleles for each contributor above analytical and stochastical threshold, counting allele drop-in and enhanced stutter

RNA Data Interpretation

N/A

Results

DNA Quantity

23-910 pg on samples, up to 43 pg on brush controls

Profile Quality

Detection of donor alleles insufficient to include contaminant donor as contributor

Parameter Used for Comparison

number of nonshared alleles from known contributors

Summary of Results

contaminant donor detected above AT in 42% of samples using standard DNA analysis methods, significant increase when LT-DNA techniques are used; number of nonshared alleles from contaminator >AT significantly higher after 31 PCR cycles; number of nonshared alleles from contaminator >ST significantly higher after 31 PCR cycles; no significant difference between injection times; number of nonshared alleles >AT and >ST from contaminator significantly higher after post-PCR cleanup; drop-in (= alleles not attributed to known contributors) higher for 31 PCR cycles and post-PCR cleanup; higher detection rates of contaminating contributor using LT-DNA methods, but inclusion of contaminator according to LCN analysis interpretation recommendations (not specified) only in one case

Raised Questions

N/A

Cautionary Remarks

no differentiation between drop-in (statistical effect) and background DNA on donor's hand (contamination) possible as handprints were not sampled prior to brushing; very detailed description of methods but important details (e.g. mixture analysis and the applied methods to analyze triplicates which apparently lead to the non-inclusion of detected contamination) not shown; differences between donor and contaminator (e.g. peak height ratios) not assessed;