Effect of common fingerprint detection techniques on subsequent STR profiling

Biomimetic Replication of Microscopic Metal–Organic Framework Patterns Using Printed Protein Patterns

“…Additionally, luminescent MOF fingerprint patterns were also successfully generated without noticeable loss of resolution using fingerprint residues more than two‐months old (Figure S13, Supporting Information), demonstrating the versatility of this technique for cold case analysis. Compared with current commonly employed fingerprint detection methods including cyanoacrylate (CA) fuming, vacuum metal deposition (VMD), 1,8‐diaza‐9‐fluorenone (DFO), and ninhydrin staining, the demonstrated MOF patterning technique does not require temperature and/or vacuum treatment and typically reveals the fingerprints with comparable resolution within 30 s using a simple UV light.…”

Recovery of DNA Profiles from Fingerprints on Paper after the Application of Ninhydrin or DFO Given Certain Time Periods

“…Results were found to be in low pg/µL and not in the desirable ng/µL range. This is to be expected from fingerprints on paper as previous authors have stated [52,[56][57][58][59]. The authors also demonstrated their results by using percentage of the profile recovered.…”

“…It is difficult to recover DNA profiles from fingerprints. Research has shown that even though the epithelial cells from a fingerprint is enough for a full profile, there had to be a modification in the DNA analysis procedure that optimized LTDNA, such as increased cycles or increased amounts of reagents used [23,52,[56][57][58][59]. One of the most important things needed for a DNA laboratory is the status of sterilization.…”

“…minutes at 100°C, they concluded that longer incubation time rather than absolute temperature affected the samples and recovery more [55]. Bhoelai (2011) found that the risk of DNA contamination should be taken into effect when fingerprint reagents are used before analysis [56]. The samples were processed for fingerprints, such as cyanoacrylate fuming, ninhydrin and DFO, and then they were processed for DNA analysis.…”

“…The samples were processed for fingerprints, such as cyanoacrylate fuming, ninhydrin and DFO, and then they were processed for DNA analysis. It was determined that even though ninhydrin or DFO did not affect DNA analysis, some samples showed contamination and it has been recommended that fresh solutions are made before immersion [56]. [59].…”