Literature DB >> 23040243

The influence of substrate on DNA transfer and extraction efficiency.

Timothy J Verdon1, R John Mitchell, Roland A H van Oorschot.   

Abstract

The circumstances surrounding deposition of DNA profiles are increasingly becoming an issue in court proceedings, especially whether or not the deposit was made by primary transfer. In order to improve the currently problematic evaluation of transfer scenarios in court proceedings, we examined the influence a variety of nine substrate types (six varieties of fabric, plywood, tarpaulin, and plastic sheets) has on DNA transfer involving blood. DNA transfer percentages were significantly higher (p=0.03) when the primary substrate was of non-porous material (such as tarpaulin, plastic or, to a lesser degree, wood) and the secondary substrate porous (such as fabrics). These findings on transfer percentages confirm the results of previous studies. Fabric composition was also shown to have a significant (p=0.03) effect on DNA transfer; when experiments were performed with friction from a variety of fabrics to a specific weave of cotton, transfer percentages ranged from 4% (flannelette) to 94% (acetate). The propensity for the same nine substrates to impact upon the efficiency of DNA extraction procedures was also examined. Significant (p=0.03) differences were found among the extraction efficiencies from different materials. When 15μL of blood was deposited on each of the substrates, the lowest quantity of DNA was extracted from plastic (20ng) and the highest quantities extracted from calico and flannelette (650ng). Significant (p<0.05) differences also exist among the DNA extraction yield from different initial blood volumes from all substrates. Also, significantly greater (p<0.05) loss of DNA was seen during concentration of extracts with higher compared to lower initial quantities of DNA. These findings suggest that the efficiency of extraction and concentration impacts upon the final amount of DNA available for analysis and that consideration of these effects should not be ignored. The application of correction factors to adjust for any variation among extraction and concentration efficiencies among substrates is proposed.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23040243     DOI: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2012.09.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Genet        ISSN: 1872-4973            Impact factor:   4.882


  11 in total

1.  Sex-specific age association with primary DNA transfer.

Authors:  Panayiotis Manoli; Antonis Antoniou; Evy Bashiardes; Stavroulla Xenophontos; Marinos Photiades; Vaso Stribley; Michalis Mylona; Christiana Demetriou; Marios A Cariolou
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2015-11-18       Impact factor: 2.686

2.  Electrostatic sampling of trace DNA from clothing.

Authors:  Martin Zieger; Priscille Merciani Defaux; Silvia Utz
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2016-01-11       Impact factor: 2.686

3.  Persistence of touch DNA on burglary-related tools.

Authors:  Céline M Pfeifer; Peter Wiegand
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2017-02-06       Impact factor: 2.686

4.  Evaluation of the efficiency of Isohelix™ and Rayon swabs for recovery of DNA from metal surfaces.

Authors:  Dan O M Bonsu; Denice Higgins; Julianne Henry; Jeremy J Austin
Journal:  Forensic Sci Med Pathol       Date:  2020-11-12       Impact factor: 2.007

5.  Cleaning a crime scene 2.0-what to do with the bloody knife after the crime?

Authors:  Janine Helmus; Jeremy Poetsch; Manuel Pfeifer; Thomas Bajanowski; Micaela Poetsch
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2019-10-18       Impact factor: 2.686

6.  DNA transfer-a never ending story. A study on scenarios involving a second person as carrier.

Authors:  Janine Helmus; Thomas Bajanowski; Micaela Poetsch
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2015-10-27       Impact factor: 2.686

7.  Evaluation of methods to improve the extraction and recovery of DNA from cotton swabs for forensic analysis.

Authors:  Michael S Adamowicz; Dominique M Stasulli; Emily M Sobestanovich; Todd W Bille
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-12-30       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Comparison of swab types for collection and analysis of microorganisms.

Authors:  Natalie M Wise; Sarah J Wagner; Travis J Worst; Jon E Sprague; Crystal M Oechsle
Journal:  Microbiologyopen       Date:  2021-11       Impact factor: 3.139

Review 9.  Biological Evidence Management for DNA Analysis in Cases of Sexual Assault.

Authors:  Teresa Magalhães; Ricardo Jorge Dinis-Oliveira; Benedita Silva; Francisco Corte-Real; Duarte Nuno Vieira
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2015-10-26

10.  Touch DNA in forensic science: The use of laboratory-created eccrine fingerprints to quantify DNA loss.

Authors:  Jessica Tang; Jennifer Ostrander; Ray Wickenheiser; Ashley Hall
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int       Date:  2019-10-23       Impact factor: 2.395

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.