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

Evaluation of Low Trace DNA Recovery Techniques from Ridged Surfaces.

Journal of Forensic Research, 2013

Study Design

Addressed Question

comparison of various sampling techniques from ridged surfaces

Activity Context

None

Category

Primary DepositRecovery

Specifications

Sampling

Variables of Interest

Sampling Methodquantification method

Stringency of Control

Controlled

Number of Individuals

N/A

Replicates per Individual and Condition

6

Nucleic Acid

DNA

Bodily Origin

skin (hands)

Depositor & Contact

Depositor Characteristics

N/A

Criteria for Shedder Status

N/A

Previous Activities

N/A

Contact Scenario

cleaning of falcon tube lids - screwing of lids by volunteers with bare hands - sampling

Primary Substrate

Primary Substrate Type

ridged plastic surface of falcon tube lid

Primary Substrate Material

Plastic

Deposit

screwing with bare hands

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

N/A

Sampling Method

single swabbing (moist: sterile water), wet+dry double swabbing, dry+wet double swabbing, PCR squares, flocked swabs, adhesive tapes

Sampling Area

ridged surface of falcon tube screw top lids

Laboratory Analysis

Extraction

QIAamp DNA Mini kit

DNA Quantification

NanoVue spectrophotometer, Human DNA Quantifiler System, 7500 Fast Real-Time PCR Machine

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

0.04-0.3 ng/µl (elution volume n.s.

Profile Quality

N/A

Parameter Used for Comparison

DNA yield (ng/µl)

Summary of Results

Taping technique recovers more DNA from ridged surfaces than other techniques; no significant differences between other techniques; NanoVue quantification results are higher than Quantifiler quantification results

Raised Questions

influence of the examiner's competence?

Cautionary Remarks

distribution of volunteers over samples not specified; details missing: swab type brands, were flocked swabs used wet or dry?; method section describes 6 samples/sampling method, results show n=18; NanoVue quantification not human specific