Forensic touch DNA recovery from metal surfaces – A review

Bonsu, Dan Osei Mensah; Higgins, Denice; Austin, Jeremy J.

doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2020.01.002

Cited by 57 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 102 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Surprisingly, in the control fingermarks DNA retrieval was the lowest for glass and the highest for metal and tile. High recovery for metals was not expected, as metals are known as complex substrates, which can interact with DNA and polymerases [34]. Furthermore, the recovery of alleles of the immunolabeled fingermarks was the lowest for tile.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

The compatibility of immunolabeling with STR profiling

Achetib

Weert

Birkl

et al. 2021

Forensic Science International: Genetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Immunolabeling is a technique, which has recently been introduced to enhance the quality of developed fingermarks and subsequently strengthen the evidential value. The effect of this method on subsequent DNA analysis, however, has not been explored yet. Therefore, the current pilot study aimed to determine whether STR profiling is possible after immunolabeling. Since immunolabeling involves washing steps which could reduce DNA quantities, the use of different fixatives including methanol, formaldehyde and universal molecular fixative (UMFIX) were investigated. STR profiles from the (immunolabeled) fingermarks were generated after four days and four weeks by a direct PCR method to enable comparison of relatively fresh and old fingermarks. The fingermarks were deposited on diverse forensically relevant substrates, including glass, metal and tile. STR profiles could be recovered for all tested fixatives with no significant difference in performance. However, the mean number of detected alleles was the highest when methanol was used for fixation. Furthermore, immunolabeling on aged fingermarks (4 weeks) was also possible, but the number of detected alleles showed a non-significant decrease. DNA could be recovered from deposits on all substrates, of which glass showed the highest mean number of detected alleles followed by metal and tile.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

The compatibility of immunolabeling with STR profiling

Achetib

Weert

Birkl

et al. 2021

Forensic Science International: Genetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It acknowledges how ionization and electron affinity of metals impact the degree of interaction with DNA as a negatively charged molecule. The proposal is that this bonding is responsible for the difficulty in recovering DNA from certain metal surfaces and it shows that understanding these metal-DNA interactions are fundamental to improving the chances of getting interpretable profiles from trace samples (Bonsu et al 2020).…”

Section: Substrate Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

(Draft) DNA Mixture Interpretation

Butler¹

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The initial release of this report is a draft document, and we welcome comments and feedback from readers. All relevant submitted comments will be made publicly available and will be considered when finalizing this report. Do not include personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, or names of other individuals. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise proprietary, sensitive, or protected information. We will not post or consider comments that contain profanity, vulgarity, threats, or other inappropriate language or like content. During the 60-day comment period, comments may be sent to scientificfoundationreviews@nist.gov. All comments, including commenter name and affiliation, will be published at https://www.nist.gov/dna-mixture-interpretation-nist-scientific-foundation-review. Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this document in order to describe an experimental procedure or concept adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the authors or the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the entities, materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose.

show abstract

“…In frontline forensic practice, touch DNA evidence is often scarce, damaged or of low quality [ 1 ] and especially difficult to recover from metals compared to plastic and glass substrates [ 2 – 5 ]. The poor recovery of DNA from metal substrates has been partially attributed to the strong metal-DNA interactions that impede the ability to dislodge and recover bound DNA from the substrate [ 6 ], and the inefficiencies of existing recovery methods [ 2 ]. Moreover, metal ion contaminants in recovered DNA may compromise its integrity and/or act as PCR inhibitors, disrupting the prospect of developing a reliable DNA profile for identification [ 7 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Efficient sample collection and processing of trace DNA using the most appropriate techniques is therefore critical. Several methods are currently utilized for touch sample collection from metal surfaces, and we have recently reviewed the merits and limitations of these methods [ 2 ]. For instance, trace DNA has been noted to get physically trapped and entwined within the fibers of cotton swab devices, resulting in significantly reduced efficiency of DNA recovery [ 8 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Isohelix™ and Rayon swabbing systems for touch DNA recovery from metal surfaces

Bonsu

Rodie

Higgins

et al. 2021

Forensic Sci Med Pathol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A previous study evaluating two swabbing systems found that DNA was best recovered from sterile metal substrates using an Isohelix™ swab wetted with isopropyl alcohol rather than a Rayon swab with water as the wetting agent. We tested the same swabbing systems on metal (aluminum, brass, and stainless steel) and plastic substrates in a regularly touched environment to simulate the non-deliberate transfer of touch evidence likely seen in a casework scenario, to ascertain the performance of these swabs in an uncontrolled situation. Higher amounts of touch DNA were recovered with Isohelix™ swabs (0.5 – 3.3 ng) compared to Rayon swabs (0.13 – 1.2 ng). The Isohelix™ swabbing system was found to significantly recover more touch DNA (p = 0.04) from the metal substrates than the Rayon swabbing system, consistent with the findings of our previous work. The results contribute to our understanding of the impact of sample collection techniques on touch DNA recovery from problematic metal surfaces and suggest that supplemental cleaning of substrates as a precautionary step against the spread of infections may affect touch DNA persistence and the recovery efficiency of swabs. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12024-021-00423-8.

show abstract

Forensic touch DNA recovery from metal surfaces – A review

Cited by 57 publications

References 102 publications

The compatibility of immunolabeling with STR profiling

The compatibility of immunolabeling with STR profiling

(Draft) DNA Mixture Interpretation

Comparison of Isohelix™ and Rayon swabbing systems for touch DNA recovery from metal surfaces

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About