Assessing the Risk of Secondary Transfer Via Fingerprint Brush Contamination Using Enhanced Sensitivity DNA Analysis Methods.
Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2016
Authors
Journal
Journal of Forensic Sciences
Study Design
Addressed Question
Is secondary transfer via fingerprint brushes more likely detected when using LT-DNA methods?
Activity Context
Category
Specifications
Variables of Interest
Stringency of Control
Number of Individuals
2
Replicates per Individual and Condition
6
Nucleic Acid
Bodily Origin
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
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
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;