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

Effect of two different swabs on genetic profiling of enhanced fingerprints

FSI Genetics Supplement Series, 2015

Study Design

Addressed Question

analysis of different factors affecting recovery of trace amounts of biological material

Activity Context

Professional

Category

PersistencePrimary DepositRecovery

Specifications

Bodily OriginDNA ProfilingExtractionPersistence with Latent Print EnhancementSamplingSurface

Variables of Interest

Swap Typebiological materiallatent print enhancement techniqueprimary substrateextraction method

Stringency of Control

Controlled

Number of Individuals

4

Replicates per Individual and Condition

1-2

Nucleic Acid

DNA

Bodily Origin

bloodskin (fingertips)

Depositor & Contact

Depositor Characteristics

4 females

Criteria for Shedder Status

N/A

Previous Activities

handwashing 30 min before deposit

Contact Scenario

handwashing - delay- fingerprint deposit - latent print enhancement - sampling

Primary Substrate

Primary Substrate Type

different porous and non-porous substrates (glass, paper, Plexiglas, ceramic, metal)

Primary Substrate Material

CeramicGlassMetalPaperPlexiglass

Deposit

50 µl of dried blood or60s fingerprint deposit with subjectively firm pressure

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 (Confirmed)

Sampling Time

direct

Persistence

latent print enhancement: metal white, metal black, metal grey, magnetic black, magnetic grey, fluorescent pink, fluorescent yellow, fluorescent organ magnetic powder

Sampling Method

swabbing: cotton swabs moistened with sterile water or 4N6FLOQSwabs-Genetics

Sampling Area

whole fingerprint deposit

Laboratory Analysis

Extraction

Chelex method, Charge Switch Forensic DNA Purification kit (Invitrogen), QIAamp DNA Micro Kit (Qiagen), final eluate: 20 µl

DNA Quantification

N/A

Input for Profiling

N/A

Profiling

AmpFlSTR Identifiler Plus PCR amplification kit, modifications: reduced amplification volume 12.5/13.5 µl for both sample types, +1µl BSA and LCN 34 cycles in triplicates for skin contact samples, 3130 Genetic analyzer, GeneMapper ID software v3.2

Reference Samples

obtained from all participants

Profile Interpretation and Mixture Analysis

comparison to reference profiles

RNA Data Interpretation

N/A

Results

DNA Quantity

N/A

Profile Quality

mostly complete profiles from blood, mostly partial profiles from fingerprints, donor alleles only

Parameter Used for Comparison

% successfully typed and %complete donor profiles

Summary of Results

blood samples: 92% of samples successfully typed, 60% of samples complete genetic profiles; extraction efficiencies: QIAamp DNAMicro Kit >Charge Switch > Chelex; reduced success due to fingerprint enhancement as all untreated samples were complete profile results; profiling success lower from fingerprint than from blood even though technical enhancements performed; for fingerprints + magnetic powders: QIAamp > ChargeSwitch; more complete profiles from smooth glass and metal plates (most likely due to a lower adherence of powders); sampling: Copan swabs > cotton swabs for the % of successfully typed samples, but an equal % of completely typed samples (assumption: more degrading magnetic powders sampled with nylon swabs); agarose gel electrophoresis shows degradation of touch samples, authors assumption: magnetic powders degrade DNA

Raised Questions

differences in more realistic scenarios?

Cautionary Remarks

details in the method section missing (e.g. nylon swabs left dry?), only selected results presented; no statistical analysis of results performed; Degradation is inherent to touch DNA samples and was not compared to touch DNA sampled not treated with magnetic powders, thus the degradation does not necessarily have to be caused by magnetic powders; latent print enhancement techniques not evaluated in comparison to unenhanced analysis approach for fingerprints