Literature DB >> 24502761

Swabs as DNA collection devices for sampling different biological materials from different substrates.

Timothy J Verdon1, Robert J Mitchell, Roland A H van Oorschot.   

Abstract

Currently, there is a variety of swabs for collection of biological evidence from crime scenes, but their comparative efficiency is unknown. Here, we report the results of an investigation into the efficiency of different swab types to collect blood, saliva and touch DNA from a range of substrates. The efficiency of extracting blood and saliva from each swab type was also tested. Some swabs were significantly more effective than others for sampling biological materials from different substrates. Swabs with the highest sampling efficiency, however, often did not have the highest extraction efficiency. Observations were recorded regarding practicality of each swab in a variety of situations. Our study demonstrates that selection of sampling device impacts greatly upon successful collection and extraction of DNA. We present guidelines to assist in evaluation of swab choice.
© 2014 American Academy of Forensic Sciences.

Keywords:  DNA extraction; cotton swab; evidence sampling; flocked swab; foam swab; forensic genetics; forensic science; polyester swab; rayon swab; trace DNA

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24502761     DOI: 10.1111/1556-4029.12427

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Forensic Sci        ISSN: 0022-1198            Impact factor:   1.832


  12 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Copan microFLOQ® Direct Swab collection of bloodstains, saliva, and semen on cotton cloth.

Authors:  Allison J Sherier; Rachel E Kieser; Nicole M M Novroski; Frank R Wendt; Jonathan L King; August E Woerner; Angie Ambers; Paolo Garofano; Bruce Budowle
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2019-06-04       Impact factor: 2.686

4.  Evaluation of the Effects of Different Sample Collection Strategies on DNA/RNA Co-Analysis of Forensic Stains.

Authors:  Daniela Lacerenza; Giorgio Caudullo; Elena Chierto; Serena Aneli; Giancarlo Di Vella; Marco Barberis; Samuele Voyron; Paola Berchialla; Carlo Robino
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-30       Impact factor: 4.141

5.  Evidence Collection and Analysis for Touch Deoxyribonucleic Acid in Groping and Sexual Assault Cases.

Authors:  Julie L Valentine; Paige Presler-Jur; Heather Mills; Suzanne Miles
Journal:  J Forensic Nurs       Date:  2021-04-08       Impact factor: 1.175

6.  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

7.  Comparison of preprocessing methods and storage times for touch DNA samples.

Authors:  Hui Dong; Jing Wang; Tao Zhang; Jian-Ye Ge; Ying-Qiang Dong; Qi-Fan Sun; Chao Liu; Cai-Xia Li
Journal:  Croat Med J       Date:  2017-02-28       Impact factor: 1.351

8.  Comparison of the M-Vac® Wet-Vacuum-Based Collection Method to a Wet-Swabbing Method for DNA Recovery on Diluted Bloodstained Substrates*,, ‡.

Authors:  Jessica M McLamb; Lara D Adams; Mark F Kavlick
Journal:  J Forensic Sci       Date:  2020-07-20       Impact factor: 1.832

9.  Rapid DNA analysis for automated processing and interpretation of low DNA content samples.

Authors:  Rosemary S Turingan; Sameer Vasantgadkar; Luke Palombo; Catherine Hogan; Hua Jiang; Eugene Tan; Richard F Selden
Journal:  Investig Genet       Date:  2016-03-17

10.  Evaluation of full-length nanopore 16S sequencing for detection of pathogens in microbial keratitis.

Authors:  Liying Low; Pablo Fuentes-Utrilla; James Hodson; John D O'Neil; Amanda E Rossiter; Ghazala Begum; Kusy Suleiman; Philip I Murray; Graham R Wallace; Nicholas J Loman; Saaeha Rauz
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2021-02-15       Impact factor: 2.984

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.