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

Determination of shedder status: A comparison of two methods involving cell counting in fingerprints and the DNA analysis of handheld tubes

Forensic science international. Genetics, 2021

Study Design

Addressed Question

Comparison of handheld tube (Fonnelop et al.) vs. fluorescence cell count (diamond dye) for shedder classification, reproducibility of low, medium, high shedder categories, influence of gender, age, and skin condition on shedding propensity, forensic applicability of both methods.

Activity Context

None

Category

Primary Deposit

Specifications

BG on Skin / Other Body LocationsContactIndividual CharacteristicsVisualisation

Variables of Interest

Shedder Statuscomparison of hand-held method and diamond dye staining for shedder classification

Stringency of Control

Controlled

Number of Individuals

20

Replicates per Individual and Condition

hand-held tube: 3; cell-counting: 2

Nucleic Acid

DNA

Bodily Origin

skin (hands)

Depositor & Contact

Depositor Characteristics

5 male, 15 female

Criteria for Shedder Status

1. Handheld tube: high Shedders: at least 2 out of 3 DNA profiles had a total rfu value above the mean (53,533 rfu) and ≥20 out of 24 full loci detected (≥83% completeness). low Shedders: all replicates had rfu values <10,000 rfu and <20 full loci detected (<83% completeness). Medium Shedders: participants not meeting high or low criteria; 2. Cell Count Method: High Shedders: average detected cells ≥ 733 cells (75th percentile), Low Shedders: Average detected cells ≤ 322 (25th percentile), Medium Shedders: Between 322 and 733 cells.

Previous Activities

handwashing 1 hour before deposition and no usage of hand cream, disinfection and/or gloves until deposition, "normal activities" were carried out

Contact Scenario

fingerprints (cell counting method) deposited on microscope slide applying medium pressure for 3-5 sec; handprints on plastic tube by grabbing with dominant hand for 10s applying medium pressure

Primary Substrate

Primary Substrate Type

plastic tube; glass plate

Primary Substrate Material

GlassPlastic

Deposit

fingerprints (cell counting method) deposited on microscope slide applying medium pressure for 3-5 sec; handprints on plastic tube by grabbing with dominant hand for 10s applying medium pressure

Delay

deposition of replicates on different days or two on same day with at least 3 hours in between each set

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

Negative (Confirmed)

Sampling Time

sampling immediately after deposition

Persistence

N/A

Sampling Method

moistened cotton swab (Tubed Sterile Dryswab™)

Sampling Area

entire plastic tube (without lid)

Laboratory Analysis

Extraction

none (direct PCR)

DNA Quantification

none (direct PCR)

Input for Profiling

entire tip of cotton swab (direct PCR)

Profiling

PowerPlex® Fusion 6 C System (Promega) with 29 cycles, ABS 3500xl Genetic Analyzer with 1.2kV for 24s, GeneMapper ID-X V1.6, AT 100rfu

Reference Samples

taken from all participants

Profile Interpretation and Mixture Analysis

No stochastic threshold for homozygotes, no. of alleles, loci, and total rfu recorded (incl. amelogenin), homozygote alleles counted as two, Y-STRs ignored, total rfu used for quantification, mixtures (>1 unknown allele), mixture proportion calculated using EuroForMix v3.0.4

RNA Data Interpretation

N/A

Results

DNA Quantity

total rfu treated as quantity: hand-held tube: 0 - 404,686 rfu, mean = 53,533 rfu; high shedders: total rfu values above the mean (≥53,533 rfu); Low shedders: rfu values below 10,000 rfu; cell count method: 62 - 1,702 cells (average 497 cells)

Profile Quality

Full profiles: 48 alleles (including amelogenin) observed in 22/60 samples (11 participants), Partial/negative profiles: 30/60 samples (13 participants); 43% (26/60) of samples contained mixtures (indirect DNA transfer), Majority (77%) of mixtures had <10% unknown contributor DNA

Parameter Used for Comparison

no. Of alleles, total RFU, mixture proporions, cell count

Summary of Results

Poor association between the handheld tube (HH; DNA-based) and fluorescent cell count (CC; microscopy-based) methods for determining shedder status. HH method: Participants classified as low, medium, or high shedders based on DNA quantity (total RFU) and profile quality. Low/high shedders: Consistent replicates. Medium shedders: Variable behavior, acting as either high or low shedders in transfer scenarios. CC method: Poor predictor of HH status: High CC shedders had 40% probability of being high HH shedders, 60% medium . Low CC shedders never classified as high HH.Indirect DNA Transfer: Detected in 43% of samples , predominantly as minor contributors (≤10% of profiles). Low shedders (HH method) showed higher indirect DNA contributions (avg. 18% of profiles) vs. high shedders (avg. 3.3%). HH method recommended for forensic applications due to direct DNA quantification and relevance to activity-level propositions. CC method deemed insufficient alone but may complement HH for rapid screening.

Raised Questions

N/A

Cautionary Remarks

N/A