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

STR genotyping and mtDNA sequencing of latent fingerprint on paper

Forensic Science International, 2003

Study Design

Addressed Question

persistence of prints deposited on paper

Activity Context

MailProfessional

Category

Persistence

Specifications

Persistence with Latent Print EnhancementPersistence with Time

Variables of Interest

delay before samplingeffect of latent fingerprint enhancement techniques

Stringency of Control

Controlled

Number of Individuals

4

Replicates per Individual and Condition

1-4

Nucleic Acid

DNA

Bodily Origin

skin (fingertips)

Depositor & Contact

Depositor Characteristics

2 males, 2 females

Criteria for Shedder Status

N/A

Previous Activities

handwashing in the morning, normal activities

Contact Scenario

handwashing in the morning (not directly before touching) - touch of paper - (fingerprint enhancement), (delay) - sampling

Primary Substrate

Primary Substrate Type

5x2cm paper sections

Primary Substrate Material

Paper

Deposit

touch (pressure as if turning a page) 2 and 30s

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

delayed

Persistence

time: 3 or 5 days, latent print enhancement: ninhydrin, iodine, soat

Sampling Method

direct extraction from paper

Sampling Area

5x2 cm sections of paper

Laboratory Analysis

Extraction

InViSorb Forensic Kit

DNA Quantification

N/A

Input for Profiling

set volume: 3 µl

Profiling

AmpFlSTR Profiler Plus PCR amplification kit 38 cycles (LCN), ABI Prism 310 Genetic Analyzer, GeneScan 3.1, Sequencing Analysis 3.0; mtDNA: mtDNA HV-1 amplification; Threshold: 5% of most prominent peak

Reference Samples

buccal swabs taken from all donors

Profile Interpretation and Mixture Analysis

calling alleles with >5% of the peak height of the most prominent allele at a given locus; determination of % of alleles typed correctly and additional "false" alleles

RNA Data Interpretation

N/A

Results

DNA Quantity

N/A

Profile Quality

mostly full profiles with slightly higher dropout at larger loci, reduced profiling success after latent print enhancement

Parameter Used for Comparison

proportion of expected alleles successfully amplified (whole profiles or per locus)

Summary of Results

an introduced delay before sampling does not reduce profile quality; prior use of fingerprint enhancement chemicals (ninhydrin, iodine and soat) does reduce profile quality: successful profiling in 47% of cases; use of latent print fingerprint techniques induced detection of false alleles (16%) possibly due to contaminated chemicals and non-clean work areas

Raised Questions

difficulty: localization of detecting latent fingerprints without previous chemical enhancement and successful STR typing after chemical enhancement only possible when sufficient biological material present (e.g. from blood)

Cautionary Remarks

DNA not quantified; no differentiation between latent print enhancement techniques