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
Authors
Journal
Forensic science international. Genetics
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
Category
Specifications
Variables of Interest
Stringency of Control
Number of Individuals
20
Replicates per Individual and Condition
hand-held tube: 3; cell-counting: 2
Nucleic Acid
Bodily Origin
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
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
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