STR genotyping and mtDNA sequencing of latent fingerprint on paper
Forensic Science International, 2003
Authors
Journal
Forensic Science International
Study Design
Addressed Question
persistence of prints deposited on paper
Activity Context
Category
Specifications
Variables of Interest
Stringency of Control
Number of Individuals
4
Replicates per Individual and Condition
1-4
Nucleic Acid
Bodily Origin
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
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
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