Efficiencies of recovery and extraction of trace DNA from non-porous surfaces
FSI Genetics Supplement Series, 2017
Authors
Journal
FSI Genetics Supplement Series
Study Design
Addressed Question
comparison of Nylon swabs, cotton swabs and mini-tapes as sampling methods
Activity Context
Category
Specifications
Variables of Interest
Stringency of Control
Number of Individuals
1
Replicates per Individual and Condition
3
Nucleic Acid
Bodily Origin
Depositor & Contact
Depositor Characteristics
N/A
Criteria for Shedder Status
N/A
Previous Activities
N/A
Contact Scenario
direct application of 10/50 ng acellular DNA to primary substrate or swabs - drying - sampling
Primary Substrate
Primary Substrate Type
plastic knife handles, plastic piping, metal cable, firearms metal, glass slides
Primary Substrate Material
Deposit
aliquots of 10 (50 for cables) ng DNA
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
24 h drying
Sampling Method
double swabbing: 100 µl water for cotton swabs, 25 µl for nylon swabs and mini-tapes, 30s of sampling
Sampling Area
direct extraction from swab or 30s sampling from sampling area (not further specified)
Laboratory Analysis
Extraction
QIAamp DNA investigator kit
DNA Quantification
Quantifiler human DNA quantification kit
Input for Profiling
N/A
Profiling
N/A
Reference Samples
N/A
Profile Interpretation and Mixture Analysis
N/A
RNA Data Interpretation
N/A
Results
DNA Quantity
recovery: <5 to over 90%
Profile Quality
N/A
Parameter Used for Comparison
% recovery (in ng from deposit)
Summary of Results
direct extraction efficiency for QIAamp investigator kit: 81.5 %; efficiency similarly high for extraction from nylon swabs but significantly lower from cotton swabs (55.8 %); For the range of primary substrates tested, efficiencies were not different for both swab types; primary substrates: knife handles > plastic piping, firearm metal, glass slides > metal cables; recovery using minitapes inefficient (<17%) and widely variable; higher extraction efficiency from knife handles obtained by a more trained practitioner, thus training might also increase sampling efficiency;
Raised Questions
effect of practitioner's experience
Cautionary Remarks
the effect of training cannot be evaluated due to the fact the better trained practitioner did only sample one type of item; comparability between acellular DNA and trace DNA samples/ other sample types?; defined sampling time (30s) not realistic