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

Efficiencies of recovery and extraction of trace DNA from non-porous surfaces

FSI Genetics Supplement Series, 2017

Study Design

Addressed Question

comparison of Nylon swabs, cotton swabs and mini-tapes as sampling methods

Activity Context

None

Category

Recovery

Specifications

ExtractionSamplingSurface

Variables of Interest

sampling toolsurfaceexperience of practitioner

Stringency of Control

Controlled

Number of Individuals

1

Replicates per Individual and Condition

3

Nucleic Acid

DNA

Bodily Origin

acellular human DNA

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

GlassMetalPlastic

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

Negative (Confirmed)

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