Trace DNA success rates relating to volume crime offences

Raymond, Jennifer; Oorschot, Roland A.H. van; Gunn, Peter; Walsh, Simon J.; Roux, Claude

doi:10.1016/j.fsigss.2009.08.072

Cited by 38 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However a number of crime scene objects submitted to forensic laboratories frequently harbor zero to little detectable DNA, for instance on handled objects (i.e. "touch DNA") [15]. In these cases, the exogenous introduction of merely one or two nanograms of DNA is likely to have a significant impact on the results, creating uninterpretable or simply irrelevant DNA profiles.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leading-edge forensic DNA analyses and the necessity of including crime scene investigators, police officers and technicians in a DNA elimination database

Lapointe¹,

Rogic²,

Bourgoin³

et al. 2015

Forensic Science International: Genetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leading-edge forensic DNA analyses and the necessity of including crime scene investigators, police officers and technicians in a DNA elimination database

Lapointe¹,

Rogic²,

Bourgoin³

et al. 2015

Forensic Science International: Genetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…STR profiling success rates are affected by both DNA template amount [3,4] and carry through of inhibitors that can reduce DNA recovery and also prevent PCR [15]. This study did not assess the downstream STR success rate of the mock evidence items although data generated during the development of the ParaDNA technology shows there was no measurable impact in the quantification results between samples that underwent ParaDNA treatment and those that did not [5,7,16].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the disadvantage of many presumptive tests is that they show poor specificity to the human biological/chemical target [1,2] while touch DNA items often fail to produce a corresponding STR profile [3,4] due to low amounts of template material available on these items and/or PCR inhibition.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the impact of common forensic presumptive tests on the ability to obtain results using a novel rapid DNA platform

Donachie

Dawnay

Ahmed

et al. 2015

Forensic Science International: Genetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rise of DNA evidence to the forefront of forensic science has led to high sample numbers being submitted for profiling by investigators to casework laboratories: bottleneck effects are often seen resulting in slow turnaround times and sample backlog. The ParaDNA® Screening and IntelligenceTests have been designed to guide investigators on the viability of potential sources of DNA allowing them to determine which samples should be sent for full DNA analysis. Both tests are designed to augment the arsenal of available forensic tests for end users and be used concurrently to those commonly available. Therefore, assessing the impact that common forensic tests have on such novel technology is important to measure. The systems were tested against various potential inhibitors to which samples may be exposed as part of the investigative process. Presumptive test agents for biological materials (blood, semen and saliva) and those used as fingerprint enhancement agents were both used. The Screening Test showed a drop in performance following application of aluminium powder and cyanoacrylate (CNA) on fingerprints samples; however this drop in performance was not replicated with high template DNA. No significant effect was observed for any agent using the Intelligence Test. Therefore, both tests stand up well to the chemical agents applied and can be used by investigators with confidence that system performance will be maintained.

show abstract

“…A study by Raymond et al [20] on the success rate of profile generation noted that from 252 trace casework samples (all from surfaces touched by hands), 111 (44%) did not produce a profile. However, another study by Bright & Petricevic [12] found that 0.16-6.4 ng of DNA was obtained from swabbing the hands of volunteers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%