Touch DNA viability on various substrates from different shedder levels

Authors

  • Vira Saamia Doctoral Program of Medical Science, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia; Centre Forensic Laboratory of Indonesian National Police, Bogor, Indonesia
  • Ahmad Yudianto Doctoral Program of Medical Science, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia; Forensic Study Program, Magister Program of Postgraduate School of Forensics Study, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia
  • Muktiningsih Nurjayadi Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Jakarta, Indonesia
  • Novitasari Research Centre for Testing Technology and Standard, The National Research and Innovation Agency, Jakarta, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.13181/mji.oa.247398

Keywords:

DNA profiling, forensic science, sampling methods, touch

Abstract

BACKGROUND Touch DNA samples are frequently discovered at crime scenes, including those found at the scene, on the victim, with the suspect, or on objects related to the incident. This study aimed to investigate 3 key factors affecting touch DNA samples: the characteristics person that shed the DNA, surfaces variants where the DNA was deposited, and different sampling methods effectiveness that influence DNA quantity, quality, and detection.

METHODS 9 participants grouped into high, intermediate, and low shedder levels simultaneously tied 2 types of ropes, non-porous and porous. The first person will hold a rope for 5 min then pass it to the second person to hold on the same spot for another 5 min. DNA was collected from each rope using the double swab and tape-lift method, extracted, and quantified using real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Touch DNA profile at 20 short tandem repeat loci was amplified in PCR system and detected on capillary electrophoresis.

RESULTS Type of substrate (p = 0.97) or sampling method (p = 0.053) used for touch DNA collection did not significantly impact the DNA yield or profiling outcomes. A notable difference (p<0.001) was found in DNA quantity between high, intermediate, and low shedders, regardless of the substrate or method used.

CONCLUSIONS Individual shedder level has a greater influence on the results of touch DNA analysis regarding the DNA quantity and profiling quality than substrate type and sample procedure.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Yudianto A, Sispitasri YE, Margaret N. Analysis of earphone swab mithocondrial DNA as an alternative material for identification examination. Folia Med Indones. 2016;52(3):169-73. https://doi.org/10.20473/fmi.v52i3.5446

Yudianto A, Setiawan F. The effectiveness of mini primer STR CODIS in DNA degradation as the effect of high-temperature exposure. Anal Cell Pathol (Amst). 2020;2020:2417693. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2417693

Butler JM. Fundamentals of forensic DNA typing. California: Elsevier; 2010.

Yudianto A, Margaret N. Effect of room temperature on the quality of DNA from earphone swab by observing mithocondrial DNA [mtDNA] D-loop region of 126 bp (HVS II, nt 34-159) and 143 bp (HVS I, nt 16268-16410). Folia Med Indones. 2017;53(2):86-93. https://doi.org/10.20473/fmi.v53i2.6342

Yudianto A, M IN, Furqoni AH, Nzilibili SM, Harjanto P. The use of touch DNA analysis in forensic identification focusing on short tandem repeat-combined DNA index system loci THO1, CSF1PO and TPOX. Infect Dis Rep. 2020;12(Suppl 1):8716. https://doi.org/10.4081/idr.2020.8716

Martin B, Blackie R, Taylor D, Linacre A. DNA profiles generated from a range of touched sample types. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2018;36:13-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.06.002

Alketbi SK. The affecting factors of touch DNA. J Forensic Res. 2018;9(3):1000424. https://doi.org/10.4172/2157-7145.1000424

Alketbi SK, Goodwin W. The effect of surface type, collection and extraction methods on touch DNA. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser. 2019;7(1):704-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2019.10.145

Alketbi SK, Goodwin W. The effect of time and environmental conditions on touch DNA. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser. 2019;7(1):701-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2019.10.144

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;38:105−12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.10.016

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

Alketbi SK. The impact of collection method on touch DNA collected from fabric. J Forensic Sci Crim Investig. 2022;15(5):555922. https://doi.org/10.19080/JFSCI.2022.15.555923

Alketbi SK, Goodwin W. Touch DNA collection techniques for non-porous surfaces using cotton and nylon swabs. Biomed J Sci Tech Res. 2021;36(3):28608-12. https://doi.org/10.26717/BJSTR.2021.36.005863

Alketbi SK, Goodwin W. The impact of area size and fabric type on touch DNA collected from fabric. J Forensic Sci & Criminal Inves. 2022;16(1):555926. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4370445

Goray M, van Oorschot RA. Shedder status: exploring means of determination. Sci Justice. 2021;61(4):391−400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2021.03.004

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

Lee LY, Tan J, Lee YS, Syn CK. Shedder status-an analysis over time and assessment of various contributing factors. J Forensic Sci. 2023;68(4):1292−301. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.15266

Schwender M, Bamberg M, Dierig L, Kunz SN, Wiegand P. The diversity of shedder tests and a novel factor that affects DNA transfer. Int J Legal Med. 2021;135(4):1267−80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-021-02533-y

Tan J, Lee JY, Lee LY, Aw ZQ, Chew MH, Ishak NI, et al. Shedder status: does it really exist? Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser. 2019;7(1):360-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2019.10.012

Pereira DA, Faria BM, Gonçalves RA, Carvalho VB, Prata KO, Saraiva PS, et al. [Relationship between muscular strength and functional capacity in patients with peripheral occlusive arterial disease: a pilot study]. J Vasc Bras. 2011;10(1):26-30. Brazilian. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-54492011000100005

Farmen RK, Jaghø R, Cortez P, Frøyland ES. Assessment of individual shedder status and implication for secondary DNA transfer. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser. 2008;1(1):415-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2007.08.015

Saunders SK. Internal validation of the applied Biosystems® GlobalFilerTM express PCR amplification kit [Internet]. Marshall University Forensic Science Center; 2012 [cited 2024 May 15]. Available from: https://www.marshall.edu/forensics/files/SAUNDERSSHANNA-Research-Paper-7-31-13.pdf.

Vieira-Silva C, Afonso-Costa H, Ribeiro T, Porto MJ, Dias M, Amorim A. Quantifiler® trio DNA validation and usefulness in casework samples. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser. 2015:5:e246−7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2015.09.098

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

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

Lehmann VJ, Mitchell RJ, Ballantyne KN, van Oorschot RA. Following the transfer of DNA: how far can it go? Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser. 2013;4(1):e53-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2013.10.027

Verdon TJ, Mitchell RJ, van Oorschot RA. Evaluation of tapelifting as a collection method for touch DNA. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2014;8(1):179−86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2013.09.005

Butler JM. Forensic DNA testing. Cold Spring Harb Protoc. 2011;2011(12):1438−50. https://doi.org/10.1101/pdb.top066928

Fonneløp AE, Ramse M, Egeland T, Gill P. The implications of shedder status and background DNA on direct and secondary transfer in an attack scenario. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2017;29:48−60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2017.03.019

Manoli P, Antoniou A, Bashiardes E, Xenophontos S, Photiades M, Stribley V, et al. Sex-specific age association with primary DNA transfer. Int J Legal Med. 2016;130(1):103−12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-015-1291-2

Machado M, Hadgraft J, Lane ME. Assessment of the variation of skin barrier function with anatomic site, age, gender and ethnicity. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2010;32(6):397−409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2494.2010.00587.x

Published

2024-12-03

How to Cite

1.
Saamia V, Yudianto A, Nurjayadi M, Novitasari. Touch DNA viability on various substrates from different shedder levels. Med J Indones [Internet]. 2024Dec.3 [cited 2024Dec.5];33(3):148-56. Available from: https://mji.ui.ac.id/journal/index.php/mji/article/view/7398

Issue

Section

Basic Medical Research
Abstract viewed = 0 times

Most read articles by the same author(s)