Trace DNA collection—Performance of minitape and three different swabs
FSI Genetics Supplement Series, 2009
Authors
Journal
FSI Genetics Supplement Series
Study Design
Addressed Question
comparison of different sampling methods
Activity Context
Category
Specifications
Variables of Interest
Stringency of Control
Number of Individuals
3
Replicates per Individual and Condition
2
Nucleic Acid
Bodily Origin
Depositor & Contact
Depositor Characteristics
N/A
Criteria for Shedder Status
N/A
Previous Activities
N/A
Contact Scenario
primary deposit - sampling
Primary Substrate
Primary Substrate Type
fabric: t-shirt; tools: handles of screwdrivers
Primary Substrate Material
Deposit
wearing 3h, handling 10 min
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
N/A
Sampling Time
direct
Persistence
N/A
Sampling Method
cotton Dry swab, 4N6 DNA Flocked swab, self-saturating swab, Scenesafe FAST minitape, homemade water soluble mini-tapes
Sampling Area
inside neck area or whole screwdriver surface
Laboratory Analysis
Extraction
Chelex extraction or magnetic bead-based Biorobot EZ1
DNA Quantification
Quantifiler Human kit
Input for Profiling
set volume: 20/200 µl extract
Profiling
SGM Plus kit 28 cycles, ABI Prism 3130xl Genetic Analyzer, GeneMapperID v3.2, threshold: 50 rfu
Reference Samples
taken from depositors
Profile Interpretation and Mixture Analysis
determination of donor profiles completeness
RNA Data Interpretation
N/A
Results
DNA Quantity
2-80 ng from T-shirts, n.s. for plastic surfaces
Profile Quality
mostly partial up to full profiles
Parameter Used for Comparison
DNA yield (ng/µl), DNA profile completeness (full, partial), presence of inhibitors
Summary of Results
sampling: for absorbent surfaces, minitapes consistently showed higher DNA concentration and gave full profiles, no significant differences between different swabs, non-absorbent surfaces, minitapes and self-saturating swabs most efficient, self made minitapes resulted in unpipettable extracts and were thus discarded; extraction: EZ1 seemed to produce lower DNA concentrations with higher DNA purity (less inhibition) than Chelex
Raised Questions
analysis of additional samples in order to perform statistical comparison, development of routine methods for minitapes
Cautionary Remarks
details on experimental setup missing (e.g. sample size for screw drivers); no statistical analysis performed; most data not shown