Collecting touch DNA from glass surfaces using different sampling solutions and volumes: Immediate and storage effects on genetic STR analysis.
DNA collection
STR analysis
crime scene investigation
forensic genetics
glass surfaces
solutions
swabbing
touch DNA
volumes
Journal
Journal of forensic sciences
ISSN: 1556-4029
Titre abrégé: J Forensic Sci
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0375370
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2023
Jul 2023
Historique:
revised:
05
05
2023
received:
29
03
2023
accepted:
25
05
2023
medline:
4
7
2023
pubmed:
7
6
2023
entrez:
7
6
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Touch DNA has become increasingly important evidence in todays' forensic casework. However, due to its invisible nature and typically minute amounts of DNA, the collection of biological material from touched objects remains a particular challenge that underscores the importance of the best collection methods for maximum recovery efficiency. So far, swabs moistened with water are often utilized in forensic crime scene investigations for touch DNA sampling, even though an aqueous solution provokes osmosis, endangering the cell's integrity. The aim of the research presented here was to systematically determine whether DNA recovery from touched glass items can be significantly increased by varying swabbing solutions and volumes compared with water-moistened swabs and dry swabbing. A second objective was to investigate the possible effects of storage of swab solutions prior to genetic analysis on DNA yield and profile quality when stored for 3 and 12 months, as is often the case with crime scene samples. Overall, the results indicate that adapting volumes of the sampling solutions had no significant effect on DNA yield, while the detergent-based solutions performed better than water and dry removal, with the SDS reagent yielding statistically significant results. Further, stored samples showed an increase in degradation indices for all solutions tested, but no deterioration in DNA content and profile quality, allowing for unrestricted processing of touch DNA samples stored for at least 12 months. One further finding was a strong intraindividual change in DNA amounts observed over the 23 deposition days which may be related to the donor's menstrual cycle.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37282776
doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.15305
doi:
Substances chimiques
DNA
9007-49-2
Indicators and Reagents
0
Water
059QF0KO0R
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1133-1147Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Forensic Sciences published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Academy of Forensic Sciences.
Références
Alketbi SK. The affecting factors of touch DNA. J Forensic Res. 2018;9:3. https://doi.org/10.4172/2157-7145.1000424
Comte J, Baechler S, Gervaix J, Lock E, Milon MP, Delémont O, et al. Touch DNA collection-performance of four different swabs. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2019;43:102113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2019.06.014
Burrill J, Daniel B, Frascione N. A review of trace “touch DNA” deposits: variability factors and an exploration of cellular composition. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2019;39:8-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.11.019
Währer J, Kehm S, Allen M, Brauer L, Eidam O, Seiberle I, et al. The DNA-buster: the evaluation of an alternative DNA recovery approach. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2023;64:102830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2023.102830
Thomasma SM, Foran DR. The influence of swabbing solutions on DNA recovery from touch samples. J Forensic Sci. 2013;58(2):465-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12036
Bonsu DOM, Higgins D, Austin JJ. Forensic touch DNA recovery from metal surfaces-a review. Sci Justice. 2020;60:206-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2020.01.002
Martin B, Taylor D, Linacre A. Comparison of six commercially available STR kits for their application to touch DNA using direct PCR. Forensic Sci Int. 2021;4:100243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsir.2021.100243
Watkins DRL, Myers D, Xavier HE, Marciano MA. Revisiting single cell analysis in forensic science. Sci Rep. 2021;11:7054. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-86271-6
Hedman J, Akel Y, Jansson L, Hedell R, Wallmark N, Forsberg C, et al. Enhanced forensic DNA recovery with appropriate swabs and optimized swabbing technique. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2021;53:102491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2021.102491
Abdullah A, Szkuta B, Meakin GE. Effect of swabbing technique and duration on forensic DNA recovery. Sci Justice. 2023;63(3):343-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2023.03.002
Pamela T, Alice G, Elena P, Luciana C. Effect of two different swabs on genetic profiling of enhaced fingerprints. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser. 2015;5:e7-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2015.09.004
Hess S, Haas C. Recovery of trace DNA on clothing: a comparison of mini-tape lifting and three other forensic evidence collection techniques. J Forensic Sci. 2017;62(1):187-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13246
Prasad E, Hitchcock C, Raymond J, Cole A, Barash M, Gunn P, et al. DNA recovery from unfired and fired cartridge cases: a comparison of swabbing, tape lifting, vacuum filtration, and direct PCR. Forensic Sci Int. 2020;317:110507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110507
Barash M, Reshef A, Brauner P. The use of adhesive tape for recovery of DNA from crime scene items. J Forensic Sci. 2010;55(4):1058-64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01416.x
McLaughlin P, Hopkins C, Springer E, Prinz M. Non-destructive DNA recovery from handwritten documents using a dry vacuum technique. J Forensic Sci. 2021;66(4):1443-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14696
Vickar T, Bache K, Daniel B, Frascione N. The use of the M-Vac® wet-vacuum system as a method for DNA recovery. Sci Justice. 2018;58:282-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2018.01.003
McLamb JM, Adams LD, Kavlick MF. Comparison of the M-Vac® wet-vacuum-based collection method to a wet-swabbing method for DNA recovery on diluted bloodstained substrates. J Forensic Sci. 2020;65(6):1828-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14508
Sessa F, Salerno M, Bertozzi G, Messina G, Ricci P, Ledda C, et al. Touch DNA: impact of handling time on touch deposit and evaluation of different recovery techniques: an experimental study. Sci Rep. 2019;9:9542. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-46051-9
Seiberle I, Währer J, Kron S, Flury K, Girardin M, Schocker A, et al. Collaborative swab performance comparison and the impact of sampling solution volumes on DNA recovery. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2022;59:102716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2022.102716
Ok YJ, You HS, Lee SH, Sung HJ, Kang HG, Hyun SH. Comparison of swabbing solution volume and gDNA extraction kits on DNA recovery from rigid surface. Indian J Microbiol. 2020;60:206-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12088-019-00854-6
You HS, Lee SH, Ok YJ, Kang HG, Sung HJ, Lee JY, et al. Influence of swabbing solution and swab type on DNA recovery from rigid environmental surfaces. J Microbiol Methods. 2019;161:12-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2019.04.011
Egger S, Vöhringer C, Währer J, Schulz I. Technical note: comparison of forensic swabs for intravaginal sampling. Sci Justice. 2022;62:418-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2022.05.006
Hedman J, Jansson L, Akel Y, Wallmark N, Gutierrez Liljestrand R, Forsberg C, et al. The double-swab technique versus single swabs for human DNA recovery from various surfaces. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2020;46:102253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2020.102253
Pang BCM, Cheung BKK. Double swab technique for collecting touched evidence. Leg Med. 2007;9:181-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.legalmed.2006.12.003
Castella V, Mangin P. DNA profiling success and relevance of 1739 contact stains from caseworks. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser. 2008;1:405-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2007.10.071
Sweet D, Lorente M, Lorente JA, Valenzuela A, Villanueva E. An improved method to recover saliva from human skin: the double swab technique. J Forensic Sci. 1997;42(2):320-2. https://doi.org/10.1520/JFS14120J
Prinz M, Schiffner L, Sebestyen JA, Bajda E, Tamariz J, Shaler RC, et al. Maximization of STR DNA typing success for touched objects. Int Congr Ser. 2006;1288:651-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ics.2005.10.051
Dadhania A, Nelson M, Caves G, Santiago R, Podini D. Evaluation of Copan 4N6FLOQSwabs™ used for crime scene evidence collection. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser. 2013;4:e336-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2013.10.171
Templeton JEL, Linacre A. DNA profiles from fingermarks. Biotechniques. 2014;57:259-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2015.09.062
Ostojic L, Wurmbach E. Analysis of fingerprint samples, testing various conditions, for forensic DNA identification. Sci Justice. 2017;57:35-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2016.08.009
Verdon TJ, Mitchell RJ, van Oorschot RAH. Swabs as DNA collection devices for sampling different biological materials from different substrates. J Forensic Sci. 2014;59(4):1080-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12427
Phetpeng S, Kitpipit T, Thanakiatkrai P. Systematic study for DNA recovery and profiling from common IED substrates: from laboratory to casework. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2015;17:53-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2015.03.007
Phetpeng S, Kitpipit T, Asavutmangkul V, Duangshatome W, Pongsuwan W, Thanakiatkrai P. Touch DNA collection from improvised explosive devices: a comprehensive study of swabs and moistening agents. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser. 2013;4:e29-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2013.10.014
Oliveira TP, Nogueira TLS, Valentin ESB, Santos OCL, Carvalho EF, Silva DA. Evaluation of collection and extraction methodologies of latent fingerprints for military application. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser. 2015;5:e474-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2015.09.188
Martin NC, Pirie AA, Ford LV, Callaghan CL, McTurk K, Lucy D, et al. The use of phosphate buffered saline for the recovery of cells and spermatozoa from swabs. Sci Justice. 2006;46:179-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1355-0306(06)71591-x
Dangsriwan S, Thanakiatkrai P, Asawutmangkul W, Phetpeng S, Kitpipit T. Direct PCR improves STR profiles from substrate of improvised explosive device. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser. 2017;6:e507-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2017.09.180
Tièche CC, Dubach M, Zieger M. Efficient DNA sampling in burglary investigations. Genes. 2021;13:26. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes13010026
Wickenheiser RA. Trace DNA: a review, discussion of theory, and application of the transfer of trace quantities of DNA through skin contact. J Forensic Sci. 2002;47(3):442-50. https://doi.org/10.1520/JFS15284J
Maxwell® FSC instrument operating manual. #TM462 Rev. 03/22. Madison, WI: Promega Corporation; 2022.
PowerQuant® system technical manual. #TMD047, Rev. 08/22. Madison, WI: Promega Corporation; 2022.
PowerPlex® ESX 17 Fast System for use on the Applied Biosystems® genetic analyzers technical manual. #TMD047 Rev. 01/21. Madison, WI: Promega Corporation; 2021.
Hansson O, Gill P. Characterisation of artefacts and drop-in events using STR-validator and single-cell analysis. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2017;30:57-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2017.04.015
Team R. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2021.
Daly DJ, Murphy C, McDermott SD. The transfer of touch DNA from hands to glass, fabric and wood. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2012;6:41-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2010.12.016
Gill P, Bleka Ø, Fonneløp AE. Limitations of qPCR to estimate DNA quantity: an RFU method to facilitate inter-laboratory comparisons for activity level, and general applicability. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2022;61:102777. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.23.493102
Tang J, Ostrander J, Wickenheiser R, Hall A. Touch DNA in forensic science: the use of laboratory-created eccrine fingerprints to quantify DNA loss. Forensic Sci Int. 2020;2:1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2019.10.004
Tobias SHA, Jacques GS, Morgan RM, Meakin GE. The effect of pressure on DNA deposition by touch. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser. 2017;6:e12-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2017.09.020
Jansson L, Swensson M, Gifvars E, Hedell R, Forsberg C, Ansell R, et al. Individual shedder status and the origin of touch DNA. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2022;56:102626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2021.102626
Alketbi SK, Goodwin W. The effect of time and environmental conditions on Touch DNA. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser. 2019;7:701-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2019.10.144
Lee H, Petrofsky J, Shah N, Awali A, Shah K, Alotaibi M, et al. Higher sweating rate and skin blood flow during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2014;234:117-22. https://doi.org/10.1620/tjem.234.117
Charkoudian N, Stachenfeld N. Sex hormone effects on autonomic mechanisms of thermoregulation in humans. Auton Neurosci. 2016;196:75-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autneu.2015.11.004
Quinones I, Daniel B. Cell free DNA as a component of forensic evidence recovered from touched surfaces. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2012;6:26-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2011.01.004
Okamoto Y, Amano T. Effects of sex and menstrual cycle on sweating during isometric handgrip exercise and postexercise forearm occlusion. Exp Physiol. 2021;106(7):1508-23. https://doi.org/10.1113/EP089464
Tozzo P, Mazzobel E, Marcante B, Delicati A, Caenazzo L. Touch DNA sampling methods: efficacy evaluation and systematic review. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(24):15541. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms232415541
Mishra IK, Singh B, Mishra A, Mohapatra BK, Kaushik R, Behera C. Touch DNA as forensic aid: a review. Indian J Forensic Med Toxicol. 2020;14:58-62. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms232415541
Phipps M, Petricevic S. The tendency of individuals to transfer DNA to handled items. Forensic Sci Int. 2007;168:162-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.07.010
Lowe A, Murray C, Whitaker J, Tully G, Gill P. The propensity of individuals to deposit DNA and secondary transfer of low level DNA from individuals to inert surfaces. Forensic Sci Int. 2002;129:25-34.
Tan J, Lee JY, Lee LYC, Aw ZQ, Chew MH, Ishak NIB, et al. Shedder status: does it really exist? Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser. 2019;7:360-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2019.10.012
van Oorschot RAH, Szkuta B, Meakin GE, Kokshoorn B, Goray M. DNA transfer in forensic science: a review. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2019;38:140-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.10.014
Yen L, Lee C, Tan J, Yong H, Lee S, Kiu C, et al. Shedder status-an analysis over time and assessment of various contributing factors. J Forensic Sci. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.15266. Epub 2023 Apr 27.
Carrara L, Hicks T, Samie L, Taroni F, Castella V. DNA transfer when using gloves in burglary simulations. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2023;63:102823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2022.102823
Baechler S. Study of criteria influencing the success rate of DNA swabs in operational conditions: a contribution to an evidence-based approach to crime scene investigation and triage. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2016;20:130-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2015.10.009
Garvin AM, Holzinger R, Berner F, Krebs W, Hostettler B, Lardi E, et al. The forensiX evidence collection tube and its impact on DNA preservation and recovery. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:105797. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/105797
Canfield JR, Jollie M, Worst T, Oechsle C. Comparison of swab types & elution buffers for collection and analysis of intact cells to aid in deconvolution of complex DNA mixtures. Forensic Sci Int. 2022;340:111448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2022.111448
Sheth N, Duffy KR, Grgicak CM. High-quality data from a forensically relevant single-cell pipeline enabled by low PBS and proteinase K concentrations. J Forensic Sci. 2022;67(2):697-706. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14956
Boiso L, Hedman J. Overcoming sodium dodecyl sulfate induced PCR inhibition. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2017;29:e16-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2017.03.020
Hebda LM, Doran AE, Foran DR. Collecting and analyzing DNA evidence from fingernails: a comparative study. J Forensic Sci. 2014;59(5):1343-50. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12465
Poetsch M, Konrad H, Helmus J, Bajanowski T, von Wurmb-Schwark N. Does zero really mean nothing?-First experiences with the new PowerQuantTM system in comparison to established real-time quantification kits. Int J Leg Med. 2016;130:935-40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-016-1352-1
Tasker E, Roman MG, Akosile M, Mayes C, Hughes S, LaRue B. Efficacy of “touch” DNA recovery and room-temperature storage from assault rifle magazines. Leg Med. 2020;43:101658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.legalmed.2019.101658
Smith C, Cox JO, Rhodes C, Lewis C, Koroma M, Hudson BC, et al. Comparison of DNA typing success in compromised blood and touch samples based on sampling swab composition. J Forensic Sci. 2021;66(4):1427-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14694