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

Visualising latent DNA on swabs

Forensic science international. Genetics, 2018

Study Design

Addressed Question

Assessing influence of Diamond Dye on DNA profiling and use of different swabs. Improving recovery through visualization of sampling area and introduction of a potential screening method which is rapid, easy, cheap, non-destructive and safe

Activity Context

None

Category

Primary DepositRecovery

Specifications

Direct PCRDNA ProfilingPersistence with Latent Print EnhancementPersistence with TimeSamplingVisualisation

Variables of Interest

Swap Typevisualization of traces

Stringency of Control

Controlled

Number of Individuals

2

Replicates per Individual and Condition

3

Nucleic Acid

DNA

Bodily Origin

skin (hands)buccal swabs

Depositor & Contact

Depositor Characteristics

1 x m: heavy shedder, deposition of fingermarks; 1x f: light shedder, buccal swabs

Criteria for Shedder Status

As described in Kanokwongnuwut et al. (2018), doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.06.004: based on cell counts (cells/mm2) in thumb prints on glass slides after 15s of contact pressure deposited 1h after handwashing, 3 categories: heavy, intermediate and light

Previous Activities

N/A

Contact Scenario

pressing a finger on a glass slide for 15s

Primary Substrate

Primary Substrate Type

glass slide

Primary Substrate Material

N/A

Deposit

pressing a finger on a glass slide for 15s, pipetting 5µL of DNA extracts from saliva swabs (100 ng DNA) on glass slides and on swabs directly

Delay

swabbing shortly after deposistion, retaining swabs at room temperature for 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 weeks

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

Negative (Assumed)

Sampling Time

after drying

Persistence

N/A

Sampling Method

fingermarks: swabbing (moistened with 0.1% Triton-X, volume dependent on swab type), foam swab: moistened with 91% (v/v) isopropanol provided in the swab shaft, single swab technique, sideby-side in a “z-pattern” alternated by 3 times horizontal and 3 times vertical ; DNA from buccal cells: pipetted directly on swab

Sampling Area

N/A

Laboratory Analysis

Extraction

buccal swabs: QIAamp miniDNA kit protocol

DNA Quantification

Qubit 2.0 Fluorometer (Thermo Fisher, VIC, Australia)

Input for Profiling

1ng

Profiling

AmpFlSTR NGM Select PCR amplification kit (Applied Biosystems), ProFlex thermal-cycler (29 cycles), CE: 3500 Genetic Analyzer, GeneMapper ID-X (version 1.4)

Reference Samples

N/A

Profile Interpretation and Mixture Analysis

average RFU peak height to assess effect of stained swab on STR amplification

RNA Data Interpretation

N/A

Results

DNA Quantity

N/A

Profile Quality

N/A

Parameter Used for Comparison

fluorescence visualisation, cell counting,average RFU peak height

Summary of Results

using DD and fluorescence, collected material could best be visualized on Cylinder and Ultrafine swabs. Stained material on swabs retained their fluorescence even after 4 weeks. The usage of DD does not affect DNA profiling. The method presented is a simple, fast and cheap screening method to indicate which ares is suitable for sampling via visualizing cellular material

Raised Questions

N/A

Cautionary Remarks

low number of replicates (n=3) and donors (1M, 1F). DNA quantification was done fluorometrically which is not accurate