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

The Effectiveness of Trace DNA Profiling—A Comparison Between a U.S. and a U.K. Law Enforcement Jurisdiction.

Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2017

Authors

Journal

Journal of Forensic Sciences


Study Design

Addressed Question

trace DNA profiling comparison between US crime laboratory and UK police force in 2014

Activity Context

Casework

Category

Primary DepositRecovery

Specifications

Sampling

Variables of Interest

casesexamining jurisdictions

Stringency of Control

Reality

Number of Individuals

659 items from 279 cases

Replicates per Individual and Condition

1

Nucleic Acid

DNA

Bodily Origin

trace

Depositor & Contact

Depositor Characteristics

N/A

Criteria for Shedder Status

N/A

Previous Activities

case context

Contact Scenario

case context - sampling

Primary Substrate

Primary Substrate Type

Cartridges, Firearms, Gearshift, objects, points of entry, restraint, steering wheel, surface, tool, Blade, handles, trigger, entire surface, vehicle exterior, vehicle interior

Primary Substrate Material

Various

Deposit

use/touch in crime scenario

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

Present

Sampling Time

delayed (n.s.)

Persistence

N/A

Sampling Method

mostly single or double swabbing, tapelifting in selected cases, either at the crime scene or in the laboratory

Sampling Area

depending on item, not further specified

Laboratory Analysis

Extraction

N/A

DNA Quantification

N/A

Input for Profiling

N/A

Profiling

N/A

Reference Samples

dependent on case

Profile Interpretation and Mixture Analysis

subtraction of elimination reference profile if present

RNA Data Interpretation

N/A

Results

DNA Quantity

N/A

Profile Quality

varying

Parameter Used for Comparison

production of potentially useful profiles (single, mixed, partial profiles or complex mixtures); % of useful profiles loaded onto database; % of loaded profiles giving an association

Summary of Results

No significant difference between the number of potentially useful profiles obtained from single or multiple swabbing; percentage producing useful profile: 0-85% ; percentage loaded on database: 0-65% , reasons for not loading: low profile quality, consistency with victim profile, other item loaded in preference; percentage loaded with association: 30-100%; UK vs. US: US mostly laboratory examinations and UK mostly examinations at the crime scene, US mostly firearm related samples, UK mostly burglary and theft related items; conclusion: effective trace DNA profiling depends on selection of relevant items, trace DNA recovery technique

Raised Questions

further research into whether double swabbing and pooling of swabs is really an improvement

Cautionary Remarks

multifactorial dataset but many factors (e.g. time period before sampling, extraction or profiling methods, sampling site,…) not taken into account; criteria to decide whether a profile is potentially useful not entirely clear