Touch DNA-The prospect of DNA profiles from cables.
Science and Justice, 2016
Authors
Journal
Science and Justice
Study Design
Addressed Question
Recovery of touch DNA from cables
Activity Context
Category
Specifications
Variables of Interest
Stringency of Control
Number of Individuals
6
Replicates per Individual and Condition
10
Nucleic Acid
Bodily Origin
Depositor & Contact
Depositor Characteristics
N/A
Criteria for Shedder Status
N/A
Previous Activities
rubbing both hands together to reduce intra-person-variability
Contact Scenario
rubbing hands together - deposit of DNA source - (latent print enhancement) - sampling
Primary Substrate
Primary Substrate Type
smooth, non-porous black cable
Primary Substrate Material
N/A
Deposit
32 µl of sweat (approx. 10 ng), approx. 10 µl of naked DNA from sweat/buccal swabs, rolling deposit of fingermark from 5 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
Persistence
latent print enhancement: CNA fuming, WPS
Sampling Method
double swabbing or mini-taping
Sampling Area
designated deposit areas on cable
Laboratory Analysis
Extraction
QIAamp DNA Investigator kit, final volume: 20 µl
DNA Quantification
Quantifiler Human DNA Quantification kit
Input for Profiling
0.5 ng/µl or up to 5 µl DNA template
Profiling
PowerPlex ESI 17 Pro System in 7 µl reaction volume, ABI Prism 3130 Genetic Analyzer, GeneMapper software, threshold: 50 rfu
Reference Samples
buccal swabs taken from all donors
Profile Interpretation and Mixture Analysis
comparison to reference profiles
RNA Data Interpretation
N/A
Results
DNA Quantity
0-3 ng from fingerprints
Profile Quality
mostly full or almost full profiles (>20 alleles), null profiles from <0.022 ng/µl
Parameter Used for Comparison
DNA yield (ng), number of alleles detected (0, 1-10, 1-20, >20 profiles)
Summary of Results
mini-taping and double-swabbing methods did not show significant differences; profiles completeness closely related to the amount DNA recovered; significantly higher amounts of DNA recovered after CNA (and WPS) treatment - most likely because sampling was more concentrated on the deposit area due to better visibility; CNA performs better than WPS - most likely because direct contact (wetting and brushing) is involved in the WPS procedure; contamination issues (most likely due to contaminated brushes) observed after WPS procedure
Raised Questions
N/A
Cautionary Remarks
% recovery from initial deposit for sweat and extracted DNA not analyzed; interindividual differences n.s.; origin of contamination (brushes, powder) n.a.