The Effect of Common Fingerprint Detection Techniques on the DNA Typing of Fingerprints Deposited on Different Surfaces.
Journal of Forensic Identification, 2004
Authors
Journal
Journal of Forensic Identification
Study Design
Addressed Question
analysis of DNA profiles developed from different surfaces before and after latent print enhancement methods
Activity Context
Category
Specifications
Variables of Interest
Stringency of Control
Number of Individuals
2
Replicates per Individual and Condition
N/A
Nucleic Acid
Bodily Origin
Depositor & Contact
Depositor Characteristics
1 male, 1 female
Criteria for Shedder Status
N/A
Previous Activities
N/A
Contact Scenario
fingerprint deposit - 2 days drying time - (latent print enhancement/leaving outdoors for 3 weeks) - sampling
Primary Substrate
Primary Substrate Type
adhesive tape; aluminium foil; microscopic slide; paper sheet; plastic bags
Primary Substrate Material
Deposit
30s fingerprint deposit, 4 fingers
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
direct, delayed
Persistence
latent print enhancement: UV light, DFO, Ninhydrin, Ninhydrin + zinc metal salt, white powder, black powder, magnetic powder, white light, cyanoacrylate, cyanoacrylate ü rhodamine 6 G, cyanoacrylate + VMC, sticky side powder, amido black, luminol, DAB; time and environmental conditions: 3 weeks outdoors (conditions n.s.)
Sampling Method
double swabbing (moistening agent: digestion buffer) from glass, direct extraction for all other surfaces
Sampling Area
approx. 8x5cm piece, 10cm lengths of adhesive tape
Laboratory Analysis
Extraction
modified Chelex extraction method
DNA Quantification
assessed by multiplication of average peak area in a profile * number of peaks present
Input for Profiling
20 µl Chelex extract
Profiling
Profiler Plus system, LCN 34 cycles, ABI Prism 310 Genetic Analyzer, GeneScan software version 3.1
Reference Samples
taken from all participants
Profile Interpretation and Mixture Analysis
comparison to reference profiles to identify matching peaks (details n.s.)
RNA Data Interpretation
N/A
Results
DNA Quantity
N/A
Profile Quality
prints on glass plastic and adhesive tape mostly successful; paper, aluminium foil and aged prints mostly not successful
Parameter Used for Comparison
profile completeness, presence of spurious alleles, DNA yield (=avg. Peak area * number of peaks)
Summary of Results
DNA typing largely surface-dependent and not so much dependent on latent print enhancement technique: glass, plastic, adhesive tape mostly successful for treated and untreated prints; paper mostly not successful (artefacts and dropout); aluminium foil not successful (no donor peaks detected, not even in positive control); Generally no complete removal of background DNA by ethanol wiping, extraneous alleles also amplified; aged samples show mostly spurious contamination/artefacts or no peaks at all; UV-light in the longwave range (350 nm) does not affect DNA in contrast to shortwave (250 nm) UV light;
Raised Questions
N/A
Cautionary Remarks
too many variables assessed at once (fingerprint donor, enhancement techniques, sampling method, and primary substrate), the causal factors for the variability within the results cannot be assessed; number of replicates n.s.; differentiation between contamination and artifact peaks not made clear; acceptability of profiles in court questioned