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

Material and methods that allow fingerprint analysis and DNA profiling from the same latent evidence

FSI Genetics Supplement Series, 2017

Authors

Journal

FSI Genetics Supplement Series


Study Design

Addressed Question

development of methods allowing both recovery of ridge detail and trace DNA for DNA analysis

Activity Context

Professional

Category

PersistencePrimary DepositTransfer Scenario

Specifications

Persistence with Latent Print EnhancementTransfer via Vector

Variables of Interest

sample collection method

Stringency of Control

Close to Realistic

Number of Individuals

12

Replicates per Individual and Condition

N/A

Nucleic Acid

DNA

Bodily Origin

skin (fingertips)

Depositor & Contact

Depositor Characteristics

N/A

Criteria for Shedder Status

N/A

Previous Activities

N/A

Contact Scenario

fingerprint deposit - latent print enhancement - lift onto adhesive surface - sampling

Primary Substrate

Primary Substrate Type

N/A

Primary Substrate Material

N/A

Deposit

fingerprint deposit (n.s.)

Delay

latent print enhancement: DNA free black powder

Secondary Substrate

Secondary Substrate Type

adhesive hinge cards (IFI Lombard)

Secondary Substrate Material

Adhesive

Secondary Substrate Contact

lift

Further Transfer

N/A

Sampling

Background DNA on Sampled Surface

Negative (Assumed)

Sampling Time

direct

Persistence

latent print enhancement: DNA-free black powder

Sampling Method

sterile cotton swab +10 µl SDS collection buffer

Sampling Area

swabbing evidence surface after lifting and collecting liquid extract from the adhesive layer of the lift card

Laboratory Analysis

Extraction

proteolytic digestion of adhesive layer, Xs DNA purification spin column

DNA Quantification

N/A

Input for Profiling

N/A

Profiling

Identifiler and PowerPlex 16, post-PCR purification using amplicon Rx, ABI3100 instrument

Reference Samples

N/A

Profile Interpretation and Mixture Analysis

comparison to reference profiles and determination of % of alleles recovered

RNA Data Interpretation

N/A

Results

DNA Quantity

N/A

Profile Quality

average: 80% of alleles recovered

Parameter Used for Comparison

n.s.

Summary of Results

Improvements: collection buffer more efficient than water as moistening agent; by sampling from the hinge card and the primary substrate, recovery can be increased up to 50% more in comparison to hinge card alone; average recovery from the subtractive purification approach: 93%; amplicon purifications results in an increased CE signal; on average, 80% of alleles were recovered using the presented method

Raised Questions

N/A

Cautionary Remarks

many details on experimental set-up missing; an improvement by the single measures is not demonstrated, results only shown for the optimized method not in comparison to previous approaches