Effects of solvent-based adhesive removal on the subsequent dual analysis of fingerprint and DNA.
Adhesive surface
DNA recovery
DNA transfer
Latent fingerprint development
PCR inhibition
Solvent-based adhesive removal
Journal
International journal of legal medicine
ISSN: 1437-1596
Titre abrégé: Int J Legal Med
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9101456
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2023
Sep 2023
Historique:
received:
15
02
2023
accepted:
07
06
2023
medline:
14
8
2023
pubmed:
4
7
2023
entrez:
4
7
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The combined approach of classical fingerprinting and DNA profiling is a powerful tool in forensic investigations of latent "touch" traces. However, little attention has been paid to the organic solvents frequently used in dactyloscopic laboratories to facilitate the separation of adhesive evidence prior to fingerprint development and downstream effects on subsequent DNA profiling. In the present study, we tested a selection of adhesive removers (n = 9) and assessed their potential impact on DNA recovery and amplification by PCR. Thereby, we identified and characterized novel PCR inhibitors. All investigated chemicals contain volatile organic compounds that evaporate under normal indoor atmospheric conditions. Exposure to certain solvents resulted in increased DNA degradation, but only if evaporation was prevented. A series of adhesive-removal experiments were conducted with prepared mock evidence (self-adhesive postage stamps affixed to paper envelope) to investigate the impact of treatment time and the location of applied traces on DNA recovery and dactyloscopy, respectively. Due to the early onset of print decomposition, we found that only a short treatment time was compatible with the development of fingerprints on the adhesive side of a stamp. Solvents also removed DNA from the adhesive surface, thus resulting in a marked shift in the substrate distribution of recovered DNA from the stamp to the envelope, but not in the reverse direction. Furthermore, we observed that treatment with conventional fingerprint reagents lead to a significant reduction in the amounts of DNA recovered from stamps, while the additional use of adhesive removers did not significantly enhance this effect.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37402011
doi: 10.1007/s00414-023-03042-w
pii: 10.1007/s00414-023-03042-w
pmc: PMC10421768
doi:
Substances chimiques
Adhesives
0
Solvents
0
DNA
9007-49-2
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1373-1394Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2019 Mar;39:8-18
pubmed: 30513439
Forensic Sci Int. 2007 May 3;168(1):1-13
pubmed: 16814504
PLoS Genet. 2012;8(12):e1003149
pubmed: 23271983
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2018 Jul;35:46-49
pubmed: 29635120
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2018 Sep;36:186-188
pubmed: 30041097
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2014 Jan;8(1):179-86
pubmed: 24315606
J Forensic Sci. 2016 Jan;61 Suppl 1:S221-5
pubmed: 26259019
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2019 Jan;38:140-166
pubmed: 30399535
Forensic Sci Int. 2018 Nov;292:254-261
pubmed: 30322695
J Appl Microbiol. 2012 Nov;113(5):1014-26
pubmed: 22747964
Int J Legal Med. 2008 Sep;122(5):385-8
pubmed: 18369655
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2020 Jul;47:102292
pubmed: 32248081
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2019 Nov;43:102152
pubmed: 31518964
Biophys Rev. 2016 Mar;8(1):11-23
pubmed: 28510143
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2010 Feb;4(2):62-7
pubmed: 20129462
J Forensic Sci. 2010 Jul;55(4):1058-64
pubmed: 20456579
PLoS Genet. 2017 Sep 21;13(9):e1006960
pubmed: 28934201
Sci Justice. 2015 Jul;55(4):219-38
pubmed: 26087870
Anal Biochem. 2015 Oct 15;487:30-7
pubmed: 26170001
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2010 Apr;4(3):148-57
pubmed: 20215026
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2018 Jan;32:40-49
pubmed: 29059581
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2015 Mar;15:43-8
pubmed: 25529991
Spectrochim Acta A Mol Biomol Spectrosc. 2009 Jan;71(5):1984-8
pubmed: 19010725
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2016 Mar;21:145-57
pubmed: 26774100
Anal Biochem. 1999 Feb 15;267(2):415-8
pubmed: 10036150
J Forensic Leg Med. 2015 May;32:64-9
pubmed: 25882153
Forensic Sci Int. 2016 Oct;267:78-88
pubmed: 27572637
J Forensic Sci. 1996 Nov;41(6):1012-7
pubmed: 8914288
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2008 Sep;2(4):281-5
pubmed: 19083837
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2012 May;6(3):297-305
pubmed: 21917539
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2013 Jan;7(1):167-75
pubmed: 23040243
J Forensic Sci. 2022 Jan;67(1):149-160
pubmed: 34498754
Forensic Sci Int. 2022 Jan;330:111123
pubmed: 34883300
Forensic Sci Int. 2003 Nov 26;137(2-3):188-95
pubmed: 14609656
Q Rev Biophys. 2021 Feb 05;54:e3
pubmed: 33541444
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2017 Jul;29:276-282
pubmed: 28575840
PLoS Biol. 2017 Nov 21;15(11):e2003916
pubmed: 29161268
Genome Biol. 2019 Nov 25;20(1):249
pubmed: 31767039
BMC Res Notes. 2008 Aug 28;1:70
pubmed: 18755023
Forensic Sci Int. 2023 Mar;344:111595
pubmed: 36805977
J Phys Chem B. 2014 Jul 24;118(29):8540-8
pubmed: 24968001
Investig Genet. 2010 Dec 01;1(1):14
pubmed: 21122102
Nature. 1993 Apr 22;362(6422):709-15
pubmed: 8469282
Nat Rev Genet. 2011 Mar;12(3):179-92
pubmed: 21331090