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

Trace DNA and street robbery: A criminalistic approach to DNA evidence.

FSI Genetics Supplement Series, 2009

Study Design

Addressed Question

Assessment of background DNA on robbery items

Activity Context

Theft

Category

Background DNARecovery

Specifications

BG on Personal ItemsDNA ProfilingSampling

Variables of Interest

sampled itemSampling Areaprofiling method (28 vs. 34 cycles)

Stringency of Control

Reality

Number of Individuals

20 items

Replicates per Individual and Condition

2

Nucleic Acid

DNA

Bodily Origin

skin (hands)

Depositor & Contact

Depositor Characteristics

N/A

Criteria for Shedder Status

N/A

Previous Activities

regular use (reported)

Contact Scenario

regular use of item (report on survey) - sampling

Primary Substrate

Primary Substrate Type

handbags, wallets

Primary Substrate Material

Various

Deposit

regular use

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

Sampled

Sampling Time

direct/delayed

Persistence

N/A

Sampling Method

double swabbing

Sampling Area

opening and carrying areas of each items

Laboratory Analysis

Extraction

20% Chelex, Microcon 100 concentrators to approx. 60 µl

DNA Quantification

Quantifiler reaction

Input for Profiling

N/A

Profiling

Profiler Plus reaction, 28 and 34 cycles (LCN)

Reference Samples

buccal swabs taken from owners

Profile Interpretation and Mixture Analysis

comparison to reference profile and assessment of number of owner and non-owner alleles

RNA Data Interpretation

N/A

Results

DNA Quantity

0.9-28.1 ng

Profile Quality

mostly partial profiles with low non-owner contribution (average approx. 1 extraneous allele)

Parameter Used for Comparison

DNA yield (ng), profile completeness, presence of non-owner alleles

Summary of Results

slightly higher DNA yields from wallets than bags (not significant); no significant difference between usage amounts or sampling areas (opening vs. Carrying area); non-owner alleles found in 30% of profiles (roughly 10% of the total number of alleles, increasing % when 34-cycle program used);

Raised Questions

N/A

Cautionary Remarks

description of methods and results not very detailed