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

Comparison of DNA profiles from samples collected from underneath fingernails and hand deposits following everyday activity

Forensic Science International: Genetics, 2026

Study Design

Addressed Question

comparability of source and amount of foreign DNA in palm prints compared to under fingernails; comparability of the shedder classification as determined by handprints on plastic tubes, under fingernails and by cell counting in fingerprints on glass slides

Activity Context

Social ContactScratching

Category

Background DNA

Specifications

BG on Skin / Other Body Locations

Variables of Interest

sampling areasindividual

Stringency of Control

Reality

Number of Individuals

25

Replicates per Individual and Condition

1

Nucleic Acid

DNA

Bodily Origin

fingernailsskin (fingers)skin (hands)

Depositor & Contact

Depositor Characteristics

12 male, 13 female; demographic and pre-deposit activity collected in supplementary file; shedder status distributions depending on method of assignment

Criteria for Shedder Status

Assigned by three methods: 1 - Cell counting from fingerprint deposits, 2 - tube holding with hands, 3 - sampling from under fingernails. For each test, categories were assigned as: Intermediate: mean+/-1 standard deviation, low: <-1 standard deviation from mean, high: > 1 standard deviation from mean

Previous Activities

n.s. (assessed via questionnaire and presented in Supp. data file)

Contact Scenario

Fingerprint deposit - tube holding - fingernails swabing - immediate sampling

Primary Substrate

Primary Substrate Type

body parts (fingernails), plastic tube, glass slide

Primary Substrate Material

GlassPlasticSkin and Nail

Deposit

1 (glass): fingerprint from left and right index finger for 15s, 2 (plastic tube): gripping of plastic tube for 15s, 3: n.a.

Delay

none

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

SampledNegative (Assumed)

Sampling Time

immediately

Persistence

n.a.

Sampling Method

1(glass): not sampled, 2(plastic tubes): wet/dry swabbing (Sarstedt XL forensic swabs), 3(fingernails): wet swabbing technique with a MWE Dryswab

Sampling Area

1(glass): not sampled, 2(plastic tubes): entire tube surface, 3(fingernails): under all five fingernails from one hand

Laboratory Analysis

Extraction

DNA IQ™ System (Promega) following the manufacturer’s protocol (final elution volume was 60 µL)

DNA Quantification

Quantifiler™ Trio DNA quantification kit

Input for Profiling

0.5 ng, or 15 µL if the concentration was ≤ 0.033 ng/µL

Profiling

PowerPlex®21 kit (Promega) in a final volume of 25 µL (30 cycles), 3500xl Genetic Analyser (ThermoFisher Scientific) using a 24 s injection at 1.2 kV

Reference Samples

from all participants and all cohabitants of the participants over the age of 18, which were identified as either being the participant’s partner, the participant’s child, the participant’s parents and siblings or another adult

Profile Interpretation and Mixture Analysis

Genemapper ID-X (v1.6), AT: 175 rfu; Mixture deconvolution, mixture proportion assignment and likelihood ratio calculations (no minimum threshold was used for inclusions) were performed using STRmix™ (v2.9)

RNA Data Interpretation

n.a.

Results

DNA Quantity

1(glass): n.a. (cell counts (entire finger grids) ranged from 506 to 14,334 (av. 3032 cells per print)), 2(plastic tubes): 0 to 18.84 ng (av. 1.51 ng), 3(fingernails): 5.23 ng to 478.5 ng (av. 45.24 ng)

Profile Quality

1(glass): n.a., 2(plastic tubes): mostly full profiles, approx 2/3 mixtures, 3(fingernails): full profiles, approx. 2/3 mixtures

Parameter Used for Comparison

DNA amount, proportion of non-self DNA, origin of non-self DNA, shedder category

Summary of Results

1(glass): cell counts (entire finger grids) ranged from 506 to 14,334 (av. 3032 cells per print), entire finger more representative for shedding assessment than assessment based on selected grids, 2(plastic tubes): only self DNA in approx. 1/3 of samples, non-self DNA mostly partner or cohabitating parents/children, mixture inversion observed in six samples (all from partner), influencing factors: sex (self DNA male > female, no difference for non-self DNA), age (no difference, but slightly declining trend with older age), sweating (higher in self-reported hand-sweating individuals), skin conditions, handwashing (no effect observed), hand dominance (no effect), hand size (no effect), residential location (no effect), workplace (higher amounts of non-self DNA for indoor workers), 3(fingernails): only self DNA in approx. 1/3 of samples, non-self DNA mostly partner or cohabitating parents/children, mixture inversion observed in a single sample (from partner), influencing factors: sex (no difference in self DNA, more non-self DNA in females), age (no difference among age groups (18-76+), fingernail length (no difference among length groups), nail biting (higher amounts of self DNA), hand dominance (more self DNA under non-dominant hand nails), hand washing (no difference observed), self-reported sexual activites (no difference observed), work location (more non-self DNA for indoor workers) ; comparison: DNA from partner commonly detected only under fingernails or only in handprints, unknown donors were rarely detected on more than one location; most common shedder category: intermediate (approx. 2/3), weak positive correlation between DNA under fingernails and on gripped tubes, approx. 2/3 of participants were assigned the same category with both handgripping and fingernail swabbing shedder tests, weak positive correlation between cell number and DNA amounts but only 40% of participants were assigned the same category for cell counting and fingernail method,

Raised Questions

Reason for differences between hand holding and fingernail sampling experiment postulated: hygiene habits, nail-biting habits, scratching, hand washing; need for a standardized shedder test emphasized

Cautionary Remarks

N/A