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
Category
Specifications
Variables of Interest
Stringency of Control
Number of Individuals
5
Replicates per Individual and Condition
24
Nucleic Acid
Bodily Origin
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
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
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