Optimizing Collection of Trace Biological Samples from Vehicle Headrests
Themis: Research Journal of Justice Studies and Forensic Science, 2017
Authors
- JWJocelyn R. Weart
- YDYvette DeLaTorre
- IFIan Fitch
- JRJesse Ramirez
- KTKevin Tang
- SLSteven Lee
- JBJohn W. Bond
Journal
Themis: Research Journal of Justice Studies and Forensic Science
Study Design
Addressed Question
Comparison of tape-lifting and double-swabbing as recovery methods for trace DNA from different vehicle headrest materials
Activity Context
Category
Specifications
Variables of Interest
Stringency of Control
Number of Individuals
1 (?)
Replicates per Individual and Condition
2 (?)
Nucleic Acid
Bodily Origin
Depositor & Contact
Depositor Characteristics
N/A
Criteria for Shedder Status
N/A
Previous Activities
N/A
Contact Scenario
saliva deposit on surface - storage for 1-3 days - sampling
Primary Substrate
Primary Substrate Type
vehicle seat fabrics (cloth, leather, vinyl)
Primary Substrate Material
Deposit
5 or 10 µl of saliva
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
time: 1, 2 or 3 days storage at room temperature
Sampling Method
double swabbing (Puritan Sterile Cotton tipped applicator swabs, moistening agent n.s.), tape-lifting (SceneSafe Touch DNA FAST tape lifts)
Sampling Area
25x75cm pieces of fabric, sampling area n.s.
Laboratory Analysis
Extraction
proteinase K digestion, phenol-chloroform extraction, Microcon concentration (final volume: 20 µl)
DNA Quantification
Quantifiler Duo 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
0-43.5 ng for swabbed and 2.3-41.8 ng for tape-lifted samples
Profile Quality
N/A
Parameter Used for Comparison
DNA yield (ng)
Summary of Results
Tape-lifts mostly outperform swabs on cloth and vinyl substrates; swabs were equally or more effective on leather substrates; highest total recovery from leather substrates in comparison to cloth and vinyl substrates; exposure time did not affect sample recovery for tape-lifts or swabs
Raised Questions
further testing is needed to understand how textures and characteristics of surfaces affect DNA recovery
Cautionary Remarks
background DNA on fabrics not taken into consideration; details on sample deposition missing (number of saliva depositors, number of deposits, deposits taken from one or several saliva samples?, number of replicates); no statistical analysis of results; incomplete sampling of Day 1 substrates (5 µl deposits on cloths + sampling by swabbing missing)