Effect of two different swabs on genetic profiling of enhanced fingerprints
FSI Genetics Supplement Series, 2015
Authors
Journal
FSI Genetics Supplement Series
Study Design
Addressed Question
analysis of different factors affecting recovery of trace amounts of biological material
Activity Context
Category
Specifications
Variables of Interest
Stringency of Control
Number of Individuals
4
Replicates per Individual and Condition
1-2
Nucleic Acid
Bodily Origin
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
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
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