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

Who threw that stone? A study on DNA transfer

Forensic Science Intertational: Genetics, 2025

Authors

Journal

Forensic Science Intertational: Genetics


Study Design

Addressed Question

DNA transfer on stones thrown in burglary/riot scenarios and distinguishement between direct transfer (throwing) vs. persistence after a second primary transfer (handover)

Activity Context

Burglary

Category

Background DNATransfer ScenarioRecovery

Specifications

ContactDNA ProfilingPersistence with Further ContactSurfaceTransfer Sequence

Variables of Interest

transfer scenario

Stringency of Control

Controlled

Number of Individuals

5

Replicates per Individual and Condition

24

Nucleic Acid

DNA

Bodily Origin

skin (hand)

Depositor & Contact

Depositor Characteristics

n.a.

Criteria for Shedder Status

n.a.

Previous Activities

n.a.

Contact Scenario

scenario 1 (direct throwing): participant picks up stone and throws it; scenario 2 (handing over): participant A picks up stone and hands it to participant B who throws it

Primary Substrate

Primary Substrate Type

stones "sufficiently large to cause significant damage and sufficiently small to be thrown one-handed" and cleaned using brush and 0.4% sodium hypochlorite

Primary Substrate Material

Stone

Deposit

stones were held for 10 seconds before thrown

Delay

none

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 (Confirmed)

Sampling Time

immediately

Persistence

n.a.

Sampling Method

swabbing (one viscose forensic swab (Sarstedt, Nümbrecht, Germany) per stone, pre-moistened with water)

Sampling Area

entire stone

Laboratory Analysis

Extraction

PrepFiler Express™ Kit (Thermo Fisher, Waltham, MA, USA), followed by a purification on the AutoMate Express™ Nucleic Acid DNA Extraction System (Thermo Fisher, Waltham, MA, USA) with a final elution volume of 50 µl

DNA Quantification

Quantifiler™ HP Kit (Thermo Fisher, Waltham, MA, USA) on a 7500 Real-Time PCR System

Input for Profiling

n.a.

Profiling

AmpFLSTR™ NGM SElect™ multiplex kit (Thermo Fisher, Waltham, MA, USA) on a T3000 Biometra Thermocycler (Analytik Jena, Jena, Germany), run on a 3500 xL genetic analyser and analysed with Genemapper™ ID-X v1.6 (Thermo Fisher, Waltham, MA, USA) with an analytical threshold of 100rfu.

Reference Samples

included within staff profile database

Profile Interpretation and Mixture Analysis

STRmix™ (v2.9.1.02, ESR, New Zealand), number of contributors was determined by using the maximum allele count method (MAC) with stutter filters switched on, population: Swiss population dataset by Zieger & Utz (2019) with an FST of 0. Inclusion with LR > 1,000

RNA Data Interpretation

n.a.

Results

DNA Quantity

scenario 1: mean = 0.170 ng, median = 0.055 ng, 26 samples (21.7 %) with no DNA detected; scenario 2: mean = 0.480 ng, median= 0.263 ng, range 0.025 to 5.285 ng

Profile Quality

scenario 1: 80% no profile / not interpretable, 20% single/major component profiles; scenario 2: 94,8% mixture profiles, 72.9 % unsuitable for database comparison due to complexity and low amounts, 19.8% major component, 7.3% two-person mixture

Parameter Used for Comparison

Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) suitability, DNA quantity, Mixture Proportions

Summary of Results

in both, scenario 1 and 2, 20 % and 27 % of the profiles obtained from thrown stones, respectively, were suitable for CODIS database comparison. Scenario 2 (handover) yields about three times higher than scenario 1 but more (non-interpretable) mixtures; cannot distinguish thrower vs. handover/toucher via profiles/LR/mixture proportions (both equally likely as main contributor), detectability of someones DNA is largely dependent on that person's propensity to shed DNA

Raised Questions

N/A

Cautionary Remarks

Small number of indivituals (n=5) for scenario 1 and only n=4 for scenario 2 limits generalizability; no formal shedder test applied