2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2019.102203
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

DNA detection of a temporary and original user of an office space

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
13
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
2
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Instead, persistence of the original user (and detection of subsequent users) is dependent on an array of factors including the duration of use by the second person (Butcher, van Oorschot, Morgan, & Meakin, 2019;Oldoni, Castella, & Hall, 2016;van Oorschot, Glavich, & Mitchell, 2014), the type of substrate material (Fonneløp, Egeland, & Gill, 2015;Oldoni et al, 2016), the user and their ability to deposit DNA (Boyko, Szkuta, Mitchell, & van Oorschot, 2020;Buckingham, Harvey, & van Oorschot, 2016;Fonneløp, Johannessen, & Gill, 2015;Oldoni et al, 2016), as well as differences in sampling methods, interpretation standards and/or kit/instrument sensitivities (Steensma et al, 2017). Similar observations were recorded for scenarios involving a person's space that has subsequently been used by another person (Goray, Kokshoorn, Steensma, Szkuta, & van Oorschot, 2020) and worn sweatbands (Poetsch et al, 2018). Although studies exploring item use by multiple people commonly observe a reduction in the proportion of the first individual's DNA, relative to the second (and further) user over time, it is not possible (nor appropriate) to infer from these outcomes (DNA quantity and/or profiling outcomes) which individual made the last contact.…”
Section: "The Duration Of Contact Does Not Influence How Much Dna Is Deposited"mentioning
confidence: 79%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Instead, persistence of the original user (and detection of subsequent users) is dependent on an array of factors including the duration of use by the second person (Butcher, van Oorschot, Morgan, & Meakin, 2019;Oldoni, Castella, & Hall, 2016;van Oorschot, Glavich, & Mitchell, 2014), the type of substrate material (Fonneløp, Egeland, & Gill, 2015;Oldoni et al, 2016), the user and their ability to deposit DNA (Boyko, Szkuta, Mitchell, & van Oorschot, 2020;Buckingham, Harvey, & van Oorschot, 2016;Fonneløp, Johannessen, & Gill, 2015;Oldoni et al, 2016), as well as differences in sampling methods, interpretation standards and/or kit/instrument sensitivities (Steensma et al, 2017). Similar observations were recorded for scenarios involving a person's space that has subsequently been used by another person (Goray, Kokshoorn, Steensma, Szkuta, & van Oorschot, 2020) and worn sweatbands (Poetsch et al, 2018). Although studies exploring item use by multiple people commonly observe a reduction in the proportion of the first individual's DNA, relative to the second (and further) user over time, it is not possible (nor appropriate) to infer from these outcomes (DNA quantity and/or profiling outcomes) which individual made the last contact.…”
Section: "The Duration Of Contact Does Not Influence How Much Dna Is Deposited"mentioning
confidence: 79%
“…Studies have been conducted on the presence of background DNA from unknown individuals on surfaces and items in various public and private spaces (e.g., van den Berge, Ozcanhan, et al, 2016). A small number of recent studies revealed that in private spaces, many of these unknowns appear to be close associates of the owner/user of the item, such as their partners and other house inhabitants, or work colleagues (Boyko et al, 2020;Goray et al, 2020;Reither et al, 2019;Szkuta et al, 2019Szkuta et al, , 2020Taylor, Abarno, Rowe, & Rask-Nielsen, 2016). In addition to highlighting the frequency and relative contributions of the known and unknown associates of the person, item, and/or environment of interest in which various individuals are observed under different conditions, these studies have highlighted the importance of obtaining elimination reference samples to assist in DNA profile interpretation.…”
Section: Supplementary Knowledge From Caseworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the studies by Szkuta et al [117] and Szkuta et al [118] of DNA quantities and profiles generated from samples collected from clothing, and by Goray et al [119] of DNA quantities and profiles generated from samples collected from items/surfaces within office spaces, similar sets of samples were processed by different laboratories using different suites of processing, from sample collection through to the generation and analyses of DNA. These studies showed that differences in methodologies applied between the laboratories appeared to impact the quantity of DNA recovered and the composition of the profiles produced.…”
Section: Methodology Differencesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many terrorism and natural disasters have caused ISSN : 1411 3724 Eksakta : Berkala Ilmiah Bidang MIPA many fatalities, some of which can no longer be recognized or identified due to damage to some or all parts of the victim's body. To be able to identify victims, genetic information is needed (DNA (deoxyrebous nucleid acid) from the victim [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…DNA is a biological fingerprint of an individual obtained from the genetic inheritance of parents [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] (21,22,24), DNA profile identification is carried out on DNA evidence contained in human body tissues such as hair, teeth, blood, urine, saliva, muscles and sperm (23). The DNA profile maps the genetic makeup of individuals consisting of 16 loci, namely CSF1PO, D13S317, D16S539, D18S51, D19S433, D21S11, D2S1338, D3S1358, D5S818, D7S720, D8S1179, FGA, TH01, T19X, D21S11, D2S1338, D3S1358, D5S818, D7S720, D8S1179, FGA, TH01, T19X, and D21S11, D2S1338, D3S1358, D5S818, D7S720, D8S1179, FGA, TH01, TPOX, and VWA.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%