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

Comparison of stubbing and the double swab method for collecting offender epithelial material from a victim’s skin.

FSI Genetics, 2011

Study Design

Addressed Question

comparison of double-swabbing and stubbing as method to obtain cellular skin cells deposited on skin

Activity Context

AssaultManual Strangulation

Category

Primary DepositRecovery

Specifications

Sampling

Variables of Interest

Sampling Method

Stringency of Control

Controlled

Number of Individuals

50x2

Replicates per Individual and Condition

1

Nucleic Acid

DNA

Bodily Origin

skin (hands)

Depositor & Contact

Depositor Characteristics

male-female couples, match based on minimum overlap DNA profile

Criteria for Shedder Status

N/A

Previous Activities

2h no handwashing, rubbing hands together for 5s to loosen epithelial cells

Contact Scenario

males rubbing hands together 5s - deposit scenario - dividing deposit area into two equal halfs - sampling each half by one of the two sampling methods

Primary Substrate

Primary Substrate Type

body part: female forearm

Primary Substrate Material

Skin

Deposit

pressure 5 s, friction by rubbing hands 2x around the whole forearm

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

direct

Persistence

N/A

Sampling Method

double swabbing (moistening agent: sterile, distilled water) or stubbing (modified adhesive tapes for minimal contamination risk) with minimum pressure

Sampling Area

half of the deposit area

Laboratory Analysis

Extraction

QIAamp DNA Mini kit

DNA Quantification

N/A

Input for Profiling

set volume: 5/100 µl extract

Profiling

AmpFlSTR Identifiler PCR amplification kit, 3130xl ABI Prism Genetic Analyzer, GeneMapper ID v3.2.1, threshold: 20 rfu

Reference Samples

taken from all participants

Profile Interpretation and Mixture Analysis

comparison to reference profiles, shared alleles counted towards both donors

RNA Data Interpretation

N/A

Results

DNA Quantity

N/A

Profile Quality

mostly partial profiles, on average more complete profiles from offenders

Parameter Used for Comparison

profile quality (no, partial profile (1-9, 10-19, 20-29 alleles), full profile); difference in # of alleles detected by swabbing and by stubbing; Off:Vic ration based on peak heights

Summary of Results

stubbing and swabbing equally efficient for obtaining offender profiles; stubbing more efficient for obtaining victim profiles; regarding Off:Vic-peak height ratios, both methods are equally effective; conclusion: double swabbing marginally better suited as it is more important to obtain offender DNA, (advantages of stubbing: easier to handle, more standardizable)

Raised Questions

N/A

Cautionary Remarks

maximum chance conditions due to known deposition area, direct sampling; absence of any foreign alleles contradicts what is found in most other publications