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

Lessons from a study of DNA contaminations from police services and forensic laboratories in Switzerland

Forensic science international. Genetics, 2018

Authors

Journal

Forensic science international. Genetics


Study Design

Addressed Question

assessing the contaminations from 2011-2015 that were detected using the staff index of the Swiss national Assessing the contaminations from 2011-2015 that were detected using the staff index of the Swiss national DNA data base (CODIS). Data was analyzed in terms of data collected and frequency of contaminations, detection of the contamination, characteristics of contaminated stains, characterization of contaminated profiles, consequences of contaminations, direct versus indirect contaminations and hypotheses on where and when contaminations occurred were formulated.

Activity Context

Professional

Category

Background DNAContamination

Specifications

BG in Professional EnvironmentContactTransfer Sequence

Variables of Interest

assessing source and means of transfer of contaminations detected by staff index of swiss national DNA data base

Stringency of Control

Reality

Number of Individuals

552 of 709 contaminations from data base search analyzed, total searched: 62000 stain profiles and 175000 person profiles

Replicates per Individual and Condition

N/A

Nucleic Acid

DNA

Bodily Origin

trace (96%, N=334)blood (2%, N=6)semen (<1%, N=1)

Depositor & Contact

Depositor Characteristics

polie staff (86%, N=476), laboratory staff (11%, N=62), other (3%, N=14)

Criteria for Shedder Status

N/A

Previous Activities

N/A

Contact Scenario

regular involvement into casework - sampling - assessment of contamination in samples

Primary Substrate

Primary Substrate Type

N/A

Primary Substrate Material

N/A

Deposit

hypotheses: police staff: at crime scene (72%, N=227), examination by police (24%, N=75), transport and storage (4%, N=14). B) laboratory staff: collection of stain (2%, N=1), during extraction (81%, N=37), during amplification (17%, N=8)

Delay

N/A

Secondary Substrate

Secondary Substrate Type

N/A

Secondary Substrate Material

N/A

Secondary Substrate Contact

indirect contact to sample

Further Transfer

N/A

Sampling

Background DNA on Sampled Surface

Sampled

Sampling Time

unspecified

Persistence

unspecified

Sampling Method

varying (depending on case and lab), not shown

Sampling Area

varying (depending on case and lab), not shown

Laboratory Analysis

Extraction

varying (depending on case and lab), not shown

DNA Quantification

varying (depending on case and lab), not shown

Input for Profiling

varying (depending on case and lab), not shown

Profiling

varying (depending on case and lab), not shown

Reference Samples

taken from staff of 5/7 DNA laboratories and 23/27 from police services

Profile Interpretation and Mixture Analysis

comparison to reference profiles (details n.s.)

RNA Data Interpretation

N/A

Results

DNA Quantity

0-2.1ng/µl (extraction volume n.s.)

Profile Quality

single contributor (27%, N=145), mixture-major component (50%, N=271), mixture-minor component (5%, N=26), mixture-2 contributors (16%, N=87), mixture-complex (2%, N=7+3)

Parameter Used for Comparison

number of registered contaminations and retroperspective quenstionnaire

Summary of Results

Contamination occured most often during the collection of the stain (79%) and were identified as trace DNA (96%). Contributers were more frequently staff by the police. That might be because laboratory staff has an additional contamination check before reporting a profile. However, the authors state the importance of submitting results due to contamination for evaluating the impact of contamination in casework. Contamination can lead to stains not being able to be analyzed. The authors point out the importance of clean working conditions, submitting their profile (voluntarily) to the national DNA data base and development of guidelines to reduce contaminations

Raised Questions

N/A

Cautionary Remarks

contamination rate most likely underestimated since not all laboratories and police services of swiss took part in the questionnaire and contaminations detected by local search in laboratory were not reported to CODIS