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

Persistence of touch DNA on burglary-related tools.

International Journal of Legal Medicine, 2017

Authors

Journal

International Journal of Legal Medicine


Study Design

Addressed Question

persistence of owner's background DNA on burglary-related tools after subsequent use by second person

Activity Context

BurglaryTheft

Category

PersistencePrimary Deposit

Specifications

BG on Personal ItemsContactIndividual CharacteristicsPersistence with Further ContactSurface

Variables of Interest

tools typebackground DNA deposit scenariosecondary usage scenariousage of gloves by secondary user

Stringency of Control

Close to Realistic

Number of Individuals

10+

Replicates per Individual and Condition

1

Nucleic Acid

DNA

Bodily Origin

skin (hands)

Depositor & Contact

Depositor Characteristics

1 previously known good and 1 bad shedder, all other not known; equal male and female ratio in owner group, only males in burglary setups

Criteria for Shedder Status

good shedder = empirically known to transfer larger amounts of touch DNA

Previous Activities

handwash + 30 min delay for depositor, normal activities for regular user

Contact Scenario

handwashing - 30 min delay - deposit scenario - 30 min delay - 2ndary use scenario (burglary scenario or moderate use scenario with or without gloves) - sampling

Primary Substrate

Primary Substrate Type

various tools (screwdrivers, crowbars, hammers) with various handle materials

Primary Substrate Material

PlasticRubberSteelWood

Deposit

30s moderate use or regular owning

Delay

N/A

Secondary Substrate

Secondary Substrate Type

body part: hands with or without gloves (textile or latex)

Secondary Substrate Material

LatexSkin

Secondary Substrate Contact

burglary setup: door/window break-in 14-240s, moderate use: regular use 30s, both with or without gloves

Further Transfer

N/A

Sampling

Background DNA on Sampled Surface

Previously Negative (Confirmed)Controlled Deposit

Sampling Time

direct

Persistence

N/A

Sampling Method

swabbing (premoistened with lysis buffer)

Sampling Area

the whole tool handle

Laboratory Analysis

Extraction

Maxwell extraction system, Maxwell 16 Blood DNA Purification kit

DNA Quantification

Plexor HY system , 7500 PCR Real Time system

Input for Profiling

set volume: 7 µl

Profiling

PowerPlex ESI 17 Fast in 12.5 µl reaction volume, 3130 Genetic Analyzer (Thermo Fisher), GeneMapperID v.3.2.1 software, threshold: 50rfu

Reference Samples

taken from all owners and secondary users

Profile Interpretation and Mixture Analysis

comparison to reference profiles and determination completeness of known contributor's profiles (%unique alleles detected); reporting of a profile: both alleles in 4/8 and 7/13 markers determinable (alternatively: mixtures or n.d. in the case of at least 9 loci dropouts); matching: individual/major contributor in a profile that is reportable or all alleles (unique and shared) from a known contributor detected

RNA Data Interpretation

N/A

Results

DNA Quantity

10-5030 pg

Profile Quality

owner reportable in 47% of samples, match with owner in half of samples, <15 % not enough DNA for profile

Parameter Used for Comparison

profile completeness (= % unique alleles detected from all possible unique alleles), profile reporting (minimum requirement = both alleles in 4/8 and 7/13 markers determinable), matching (= database match from reported individual or major profile or detection of all alleles of a user)

Summary of Results

mock-owned tools are well-suited to mimic regularly owned tools (similar amount of DNA, similar wide variety of profile completeness); With an intensive acting without gloves, the probability of overlaying the first user is high; The first user's profile does not completely disappear when handled with gloves in burglary scenario (mainly mixtures without major contributors, reportable first user profiles in 30%, 2nd user match in 2 cases), higher proportion of no detectable profiles after gloved burglary; After moderate use without gloves, the overlaying effect though second user is present but not as stringent as after burglary scenario (first and second user match in almost comparable proportions); after gloved moderate use, the first users profile is detectable in most cases, the second user never matched, the proportion of uninterpretable profiles was low; material dependent differences after moderate handling: touch DNA is more easily removed from coated wood (hard smooth) compared to plastic/rubber (soft, porous); the deposit in a burglary scenario seems to be high, independent of the shedder status of the depositor -> the way of use is crucial and predominates the importance of most other influencing factors; Masked touching is rare but possible (observed in one case here); generally high intraindividual deposit variability, but tendency for increased reproducible deposit for some individuals;

Raised Questions

N/A

Cautionary Remarks

different criteria used for comparison (completeness of owner's profile, reporting, match), sometimes complicates understanding which criteria was used for comparison and why