DNA profiles from fingermarks: A mock case study
FSI Genetics Supplement Series, 2015
Authors
Journal
FSI Genetics Supplement Series
Study Design
Addressed Question
Application of direct PCR to realistic mock case items
Activity Context
Category
Specifications
Variables of Interest
Stringency of Control
Number of Individuals
4
Replicates per Individual and Condition
3
Nucleic Acid
Bodily Origin
Depositor & Contact
Depositor Characteristics
N/A
Criteria for Shedder Status
N/A
Previous Activities
regular usage of items, no cleaning
Contact Scenario
touching items - deposition in a shrub bed area - sampling
Primary Substrate
Primary Substrate Type
glass, wooden knife handles, masking tape, brass, nickel and aluminium cartridges
Primary Substrate Material
Deposit
touch (less than 15 s)
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
Sampling Time
delayed
Persistence
deposition in shrub bed area for 24 h or 8 days
Sampling Method
nylon FLOQswabs moistened with Triton-X
Sampling Area
targeted swabbing of fingermark areas
Laboratory Analysis
Extraction
direct PCR from swabs
DNA Quantification
N/A
Input for Profiling
direct PCR from 2 mm^2 portion of the swabs
Profiling
NGM Select kit, 3130xl ABI genetic analyzer, GeneMapper ID v3.2 software, threshold: 50 rfu
Reference Samples
taken from all volunteers
Profile Interpretation and Mixture Analysis
comparison to reference profiles: informative profiles were >12 alleles match donors
RNA Data Interpretation
N/A
Results
DNA Quantity
N/A
Profile Quality
mostly informative single source and mixed profiles
Parameter Used for Comparison
% informative profiles (>12 alleles)
Summary of Results
mostly informative profiles obtained, highest rate of DNA recovery from glass, lowest rate of DNA recovery from brass cartridges; mostly mixed DNA profiles obtained, with donor as major contributor in all cases; minimum observed stochastic effects or artefacts; leaving substrates outside for 8 days reduces overall profiling success; short exposure to UV light and rain do not appear to adversely affect DNA recovery in this study
Raised Questions
larger sample study required before conclusions can be drawn to the effect of long term environmental exposure
Cautionary Remarks
n.s. whether major contributor was determined before or after comparison to reference profile; only direct PCR shown, not compared to analysis of the same samples using standard extraction procedures; glass stored indoors and not outdoors but not compared in results section; details on deposit scenario missing