DNA recovery after sequential processing of latent fingerprints on black polyethylene plastic.
DNA profiling
fingerprint development
latent fingerprints
plastic bags
sequential treatments
touch DNA
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:
25 Feb 2024
25 Feb 2024
Historique:
revised:
12
02
2024
received:
25
10
2023
accepted:
12
02
2024
medline:
25
2
2024
pubmed:
25
2
2024
entrez:
25
2
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Latent fingerprints on plastic substrates can be visualized by using sequential treatments to enhance the contrast between the fingerprint residues and underlying substrate; however, the extent to which these processes affect subsequent DNA analysis is mostly unknown. Latent fingerprints deposited on black plastic by one donor were visualized with single-process fingerprint powders (i.e., white powder, bichromatic powder, or bichromatic magnetic powder) or sequential treatments (i.e., laser → reflected ultraviolet imaging system (RUVIS) → CA fuming → RUVIS → Rhodamine 6G, Ardrox, and MBD (RAM) or CA fuming → RAM/laser → bichromatic magnetic powder). Samples were examined after the addition of each treatment. DNA was collected using cotton swabs, extracted, quantified, and amplified. DNA yields, peak heights, number of alleles obtained, and percentage of DNA profiles eligible for CODIS upload were examined. Latent fingerprints processed with the laser and up to three sequential treatments generated DNA profiles with significantly higher peaks heights than those of the untreated samples. Fingerprints processed with the laser and up to two sequential treatments generated DNA profiles with significantly more alleles. All methods beginning with laser enhancement generated more CODIS-eligible profiles. Additional research is needed to determine the extent to which initial laser enhancement impacts the success of downstream DNA profiling results. Although DNA profile development is not guaranteed due to the variable quantities of DNA contained within latent fingerprints, the selection of an appropriate latent fingerprint visualization method could maximize both fingerprint detection and the generation of CODIS-eligible DNA profiles.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38402545
doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.15498
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : National Institute of Justice
ID : 2011-DN-BX-K564
Organisme : National Institute of Justice
ID : 2016-MU-BX-K110
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Authors. Journal of Forensic Sciences published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Academy of Forensic Sciences.
Références
Keith L, Runion W. Short-wave UV imaging casework applications. J Forensic Identif. 1998;48(5):563-569.
Saferstein R, Graf SL. Evaluation of a reflected ultraviolet imaging system for fingerprint detection. J Forensic Identif. 2001;51(4):385-393.
Lee HC, Gaensslen R. Cyanoacrylate fuming. Identif News. 1984;34(6):8-14.
Yamashita B, French M, Bleay S, Cantu A, Inlow V, Ramotowski R, et al. Latent print development. The fingerprint sourcebook. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice; 2011. p. 225-320.
Lee H, Gaensslen R. Methods of latent fingerprint development. In: Ramotowski R, Gaensslen RE, Lee HC, editors. Advances in fingerprint technology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2001. p. 106-160.
Champod C, Lennard C, Margot P, Stoilovic M. Fingerprint detection techniques. Fingerprints and other ridge skin impressions. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2004. p. 136-147.
Bhoelai B, de Jong BJ, de Puit M, Sijen T. Effect of common fingerprint detection techniques on subsequent STR profiling. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser. 2011;3(1):e429-e430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2011.09.076
Kumar P, Gupta R, Singh R, Jasuja OP. Effects of latent fingerprint development reagents on subsequent forensic DNA typing: a review. J Forensic Leg Med. 2015;32:64-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2015.03.002
Norlin S, Nilsson M, Hedén P, Allen M. Evaluation of the impact of different visualization techniques on DNA in fingerprints. J Forensic Identif. 2013;63(2):189-204.
Joy J, Cox JO, Hudson BC, Armstrong J, Miller MT, Cruz T. Comparison of cyanoacrylate fuming techniques of bloody and latent fingerprints and the examination of subsequent DNA success. J Forensic Identif. 2020;70(2):171-185.
Trozzi TA, Schwartz RL, Hollars ML. Processing guide for developing latent prints. Quantico, VA: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation; 2000.
Kasper SP. Process sequence protocols. In: Kasper SP, editor. Latent print processing guide. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 2016. p. 43-48.
Richards DA, Thomas JR. Nonporous fluorescent dye stains: a comparative analysis. J Forensic Identif. 2014;64(3):239-254.
von Wurmb N, Meissner D, Wegener R. Influence of cyanoacrylate on the efficiency of forensic PCRs. Forensic Sci Int. 2001;124(1):11-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0379-0738(01)00515-1
Lennard C, Margot P. Sequencing of reagents for the improved visualization of latent fingerprints. J Forensic Identif. 1988;38(5):197-210.
Cummings H, Hollars M, Trozzi T. Getting the most from cyanoacrylate cyes. J Forensic Identif. 1993;43(1):37-43.
International Association for Identification (Chesapeake Bay Division). Latent fingerprint processing techniques - Selection & sequencing guide. 2010. [Accessed 12 Feb 2024]. Available from: https://www.cbdiai.org/uploads/1/2/4/0/124025868/latent_fingerprint_chemical_reagent_techniques_guide.pdf
Shipman J. Evaluation of vacuum metal deposition: fingerprint development on plastic, gloves, handguns, and live ammo. J Forensic Identif. 2021;71(2):119-141.
Moody EW. Development of fingerprint impressions on plastic bags over time and under different storage temperatures. J Forensic Identif. 1994;44(3):266-269.
Hefetz I, Einot N, Faerman M, Horowitz M, Almog J. Touch DNA: the effect of the deposition pressure on the quality of latent fingermarks and STR profiles. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2019;38:105-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.10.016
Jasuja OP, Toofany MA, Singh G, Sodhi GS. Dynamics of latent fingerprints: the effect of physical factors on quality of ninhydrin developed prints - a preliminary study. Sci Justice. 2009;49(1):8-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2008.08.001
Federal Bureau of Investigation. Frequently asked questions on CODIS and NDIS. [Accessed 6 Oct 2021]. Available from: https://www.fbi.gov/services/laboratory/biometric-analysis/codis/codis-and-ndis-fact-sheet
van Oorschot RAH, Treadwell S, Beaurepaire J, Holding NL, Mitchell RJ. Beware of the possibility of fingerprinting techniques transferring DNA. J Forensic Sci. 2005;50(6):1417-1422. https://doi.org/10.1520/JFS2004430
Carlin M, Nickel R, Halstead K, Viray J, Hall A, Ehrlich A. Quantifying DNA loss in laboratory-created latent prints due to fingerprint processing. Forensic Sci Int. 2023;344:111595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2023.111595
Gaillard C, Strauss F. Avoiding adsorption of DNA to polypropylene tubes and denaturation of short DNA fragments. Tech Tips Online. 1998;3(1):63-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1366-2120(08)70101-6
Gaillard C, Strauss F. Eliminating DNA loss and denaturation during storage in plastic microtubes. Am Biotechnol Lab. 2000;20(2):24.
Bathrick AS, Norsworthy S, Plaza DT, McCormick MN, Slack D, Ramotowski RS. DNA recovery after sequential processing of latent fingerprints on copy paper. J Forensic Sci. 2022;67(1):149-160. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14881
Vandewoestyne M, Van Hoofstat D, Franssen A, Van Nieuwerburgh F, Deforce D. Presence and potential of cell free DNA in different types of forensic samples. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2013;7(2):316-320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2012.12.005
Burrill J, Kombara A, Daniel B, Frascione N. Exploration of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) recovery for touch deposits. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2021;51:102431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2020.102431
Adamowicz MS, Stasulli DM, Sobestanovich EM, Bille TW. Evaluation of methods to improve the extraction and recovery of DNA from cotton swabs for forensic analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9(12):e116351. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0116351
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
Raymond JJ, Roux C, Du Pasquier E, Sutton J, Lennard C. The effect of common fingerprint detection techniques on the DNA typing of fingerprints deposited on different surfaces. J Forensic Identif. 2004;54(1):22-44.
Ottens R, Templeton J, Paradiso V, Taylor D, Abarno D, Linacre A. Application of direct PCR in forensic casework. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser. 2013;4(1):e47-e48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2013.10.024
van Oorschot RAH, Phelan DG, Furlong S, Scarfo GM, Holding NL, Cummins MJ. Are you collecting all the available DNA from touched objects? Int Congr Ser. 2003;1239:803-807. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0531-5131(02)00498-3
Swaran YC, Welch L. A comparison between direct PCR and extraction to generate DNA profiles from samples retrieved from various substrates. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2012;6(3):407-412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2011.08.007
Templeton JEL, Taylor D, Handt O, Linacre A. Typing DNA profiles from previously enhanced fingerprints using direct PCR. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2017;29:276-282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2017.05.006
Phipps M, Petricevic S. The tendency of individuals to transfer DNA to handled items. Forensic Sci Int. 2007;168(2-3):162-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.07.010
Alessandrini F, Cecati M, Pesaresi M, Turchi C, Carle F, Tagliabracci A. Fingerprints as evidence for a genetic profile: morphological study on fingerprints and analysis of exogenous and individual factors affecting DNA typing. J Forensic Sci. 2003;48(3):586-592. https://doi.org/10.1520/JFS2002260
Almog J, Sheratzki H, Elad-Levin M, Sagiv AE, Singh GD, Jasuja OP. Moistened hands do not necessarily allude to high quality fingerprints: the relationship between palmar moisture and fingerprint donorship. J Forensic Sci. 2011;56(Suppl 1):S162-S165. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01587.x
Kanokwongnuwut P, Martin B, Kirkbride KP, Linacre A. Shedding light on shedders. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2018;36:20-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.06.004
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(1):9542. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-46051-9