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

DNA persistence of bite marks on food and its relevance for STR typing

International Journal of Legal Medicine, 2017

Study Design

Addressed Question

Persistence of salivary DNA in bite marks on food

Activity Context

BitingEating & Drinking

Category

Persistence

Specifications

Persistence with Environmental ConditionsPersistence with HumidityPersistence with Microbial GrowthPersistence with TemperaturePersistence with TimeSurface

Variables of Interest

Primary substratestorage timestorage conditions

Stringency of Control

Controlled

Number of Individuals

6-11

Replicates per Individual and Condition

1

Nucleic Acid

DNA

Bodily Origin

saliva

Depositor & Contact

Depositor Characteristics

N/A

Criteria for Shedder Status

N/A

Previous Activities

drinking a mouthful of water and 5 min break

Contact Scenario

biting into food - storage at varying conditions - sampling

Primary Substrate

Primary Substrate Type

apple, chocolate bar, control glass plate

Primary Substrate Material

FoodGlass

Deposit

biting or controlled deposit of 30 µl saliva

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

Negative (Assumed)

Sampling Time

delayed

Persistence

storage indoors (dark, dry) or outdoors (November: humid, relatively cold, protected from rain but moist or September: warmer) for time: 1, 7, 14, 21 days

Sampling Method

moist (distilled water) swabbing

Sampling Area

the whole biting area

Laboratory Analysis

Extraction

Maxwell extraction system, Maxwell 16 Blood DNA Purification kit

DNA Quantification

Quantifiler Duo kit

Input for Profiling

set volume: 10 µl DNA template

Profiling

PowerPlex ESX17 Fast, 3130 Genetic Analyzer, GeneMapper ID v3.2.1 software, threshold: 50 rfu

Reference Samples

taken from all depositors

Profile Interpretation and Mixture Analysis

comparison to reference profiles and determination of the degree of completeness, LR calculations using Statistefix v.2.3.5640

RNA Data Interpretation

N/A

Results

DNA Quantity

0-228 ng/bite mark

Profile Quality

mostly full profiles, partial to no profiles where degradation was too strong

Parameter Used for Comparison

degree of completeness (=Number of alleles detected/number of possible alleles), DNA yield, alpha-amylase activity

Summary of Results

Interpersonal variability of DNA deposit and amylase activity; Microscope slides and chocolate bars did not change much, apples were observed to get moldy with time, especially under warmer conditions; Amylase activity was reduced with time with warmer conditions and increased moisture as well as the presence of mold leading to an increased speed of reduction; higher DNA yields from apples compared to chocolate bars and microscopic slides (either due to increased bite mark size or increased saliva production due to the acidic nature of the apples); DNA amount decreased with storage time for all samples, the effect was stronger for chocolate bars and microscope slides (wash-off assumed) under cold and wet conditions and for apples under warm conditions; no correlation between DNA yield and amylase activity observed; STR profiling: full STR profiles from apples indoors and outdoors under cold and humid conditions (preservation), chocolate bars and microscopic slides (inert or hygroscopic surfaces) more affected by humidity (only partial or empty profiles after 21 days outdoors); warmer conditions lead to increased mold growth and decreased profile quality on apples (informative STR profiles still obtainable in some cases); Conclusion: a variability of factors affects the quality of DNA from bitemarks (physical, chemical and microbial effects), so the outcome is not predictable, but this study encourages the analysis of bite marks even if the visual appearance is rather unfavorable

Raised Questions

Factors affecting individuals saliva deposit

Cautionary Remarks

for outdoor samples: wash-off vs. DNA degradation not differentiated experimentally