About the influence of environmental factors on the persistence of DNA - a long-term study.

DNA persistence and DNA transfer are important features in the assessment of a crime scene. The question how long DNA may persist at a certain location is similarly important as the one how the DNA has been transferred to this location. Depending on the source of the DNA as well as the conditions at the crime scene, the answer to this question is quite difficult. In this study, persistence of DNA from epithelial abrasions, blood cells, and saliva cells in indoor and outdoor scenarios has been investigated with regard to exposure time and exposure conditions including sunlight, temperature, and humidity in summer and winter scenarios. Overall, we generated 338 epithelial samples, 572 blood samples, and 572 saliva samples. A complete profile of the cell/DNA donor after exposure could be obtained in 47%, 65%, and 58% of epithelial abrasions, blood samples, and saliva samples, respectively. Regarding blood samples, there were no differences between supporting materials cloth and plastic; however, the percentage of complete profiles was higher for saliva samples on plastic and for epithelial samples on cloth. In indoor scenarios, complete profiles could be recovered from nearly all blood and saliva samples up to 9 months, whereas the amount of epithelial complete profiles already started to decline after 3 months. In outdoor scenarios, we observed a tipping point at an exposure time of 3 months. Blood and saliva samples collected after this period displayed complete profiles in less than 25% of samples. After 12 months, no outdoor sample showed a complete profile. The results of this study facilitate decisions on the relevance of recovered DNA from crime scenes.

"I've never been at the crime scene!" - gloves as carriers for secondary DNA transfer.

Over recent years, DNA profiling techniques have become highly sensitive. Even small amounts of DNA at crime scenes can be analysed leading to new defence strategies. At court, defence lawyers rarely question the existence of a DNA trace (source level) but challenge how the DNA was transferred to the scene (activity level). Nowadays, the most common defence strategy is to claim that somebody else had stolen the defendant's gloves and used them while breaking and entering. In this study we tested this statement. Using gloves made of different material (cloth, leather, rubber) and varying secondary transfer surfaces (wood, metal, glass), we simulated a few of the most likely transfer scenarios that occur during breaking and entering. While we detected the presence of DNA on the outside of 92 of the 98 gloves tested, we observed only one case of secondary transfer in a total of 81 transfer experiments. This data demonstrates that secondary transfer under conditions resembling realistic conditions is a very rare event.

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

The persistence of DNA on washed items as well as the DNA transfer has become a major subject of research in recent years, especially after the detectability of minor DNA traces was heavily increased by sensitive analysis methods. Nowadays, the attribution of a DNA trace to an individual is only rarely questioned, whereas the way of application of this DNA to an item is subject to much discussion and speculation. Additionally, the removal of DNA by cleaning or its possible persistence on an item despite a cleaning process are often important problems in court. The aim of this study was to investigate whether DNA traces (blood, saliva, epithelial cells) on different objects (knives, plates, glasses, and plastic lids) can persist on the surface despite cleaning by different methods like hand-washing or the use of a dishwasher. In total, 120 samples were collected from artificially constructed blood, saliva, and epithelial cell stains on objects with smooth surfaces after washing and analyzed by STR amplification. Samples taken after rinsing or hand-washing resulted mainly in complete DNA profiles (62.5% of samples), while cleaning in the dishwasher rendered almost everything completely DNA-free. Since in the hand-washing experiments a secondary transfer of DNA through the water could not be ruled out, additional transfer experiments were conducted with blood and saliva samples on plates. Here, a carryover of DNA traces could be demonstrated up to the fifth washed item.

Unintentional effects of cleaning a crime scene-when the sponge becomes an accomplice in DNA transfer.

DNA transfer in aqueous solutions as well as the persistence of DNA on washed items has become a major subject of research in recent years and is often a significant problem in court. Despite these approaches, the question about the "mobility" of DNA especially in capital offenses cannot be answered in every case, since a variety of scenarios for DNA transfer are possible. The aim of this study was to investigate whether DNA traces could be distributed by cleaning an object. For this purpose, a large table surface and fabric piece were artificially provided with skin contact traces and body fluids (saliva and blood) in two series of experiments and then wiped off with water or with soap water (218 samples in total). These experiments resulted in a clear "carry over" of DNA traces especially for body fluid samples (100% of blood samples and 75% of saliva samples led to a complete profile). The results could be confirmed in a second experimental set-up with 384 samples using different cleaning agents and more intense cleaning actions. Even small amounts of 5-10 µl body fluid led to complete profiles in around 45% of the samples, while 20 µl led to nearly 65% complete profiles. A strong impact of the amount of traces and the chosen surface could be demonstrated, while the active component of the cleaning agent seemed to be of less influence with the explicit exception of chloric agents which rendered almost everything completely DNA-free. In summary, a distribution of DNA traces by wiping or scrubbing an object could be clearly proven.

Impact of several wearers on the persistence of DNA on clothes-a study with experimental scenarios.

The detection of DNA of a certain person on the inside of a piece of clothing involved in a crime scene is usually seen as confirmation that this person is the owner or bearer and therefore participated in this crime. However, besides the possibilities of secondary or even tertiary transfer of DNA, the accused often argues that he lent the garment to another person who by chance did not leave any DNA while committing the crime. Then, forensic genetic scientists have to answer the question how long DNA persists on an item used in daily routine and how long a piece of clothing must be worn to definitively leave detectable DNA behind. In an attempt to answer these questions, several scenarios with two or three individuals wearing the same sweatband for different time periods were set up. DNA left on the sweatbands was isolated, quantified, and then analyzed using the Powerplex® ESX17fast kit. The majority of samples displayed all alleles of both/all three wearers on the outside (67%) as well as on the inside (80%) of the sweatbands. In contrast, a single profile of the first wearer could only be found once among all 204 samples, a single profile of the second wearer in 7% of samples. Wearing the sweatband for only 10 min was enough to result in a complete profile of the second wearer in 79% of samples. So, it is highly unlikely to wear/use a piece of clothing for even a short period of time without leaving own DNA behind.

Persistence of DNA on clothes after exposure to water for different time periods-a study on bathtub, pond, and river.

DNA traces on clothes of drowned bodies can provide important evidence for police investigations, especially in cases of suspected suicides or homicides. However, it is generally assumed that the water "erodes" a large part of the DNA depending especially on the exposure time. In forensic casework, DNA of suspects could be found frequently on clothes of drowned bodies after hours, sometimes days of exposure to water. This study was conducted to attempt a general statement about the conditions under which sufficient DNA remains can be expected for molecular genetic analysis. For this purpose, different scenarios were designed including DNA from three to five people, different types of waters (tap, pond, bathtub and river) for various time periods, with higher water pressure, different temperature, and soapy water (bathtub). Epithelial cells and blood cells were mounted on cotton cloths, and the DNA left after exposure was analyzed using the Powerplex® ESX17fast kit. In the indoor experiments, complete profiles could be seen even after 10 min rinsing of clothes under the tap and after 1 week in the bathtub. Outdoors, the results differed considerably between summer and winter as well as between pond and river. The longest exposure time still resulting in a complete profile was 2 weeks for a sample with skin cells in the pond during winter. In summer, the time period for erasing the bulk of DNA was 4 hours regarding epithelial samples and more than 1 day for blood samples in pond and river environments. All in all, the results demonstrate that DNA could still be recovered from clothes exposed to water for more than 1 week.

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

The transfer of DNA directly from one item to another has been shown in many studies with elaborate discussions on the nature of the DNA donor as well as material and surface of the items or surrounding features. Every DNA transfer scenario one can imagine seems to be possible. This evokes more and more intricate scenarios proposed by lawyers or attorneys searching for an explanation of the DNA of a certain person on a distinct item with impact on a crime. At court, the forensic genetic scientist has to comment on the probability of these scenarios thus calling for extensive studies on such settings. Here, the possibility of an involvement of a second person as a carrier of the donor's DNA in a variety of different scenarios including three pairs of people and two kinds of items (textiles and plastic bags) was investigated. All transfer settings were executed with and without gloves on the carrier's hands. DNA left on the items was isolated and analyzed using the Powerplex® ESX17 kit. In 21 out of 180 samples, all alleles of the donor DNA could be obtained on the second item (12%), on eight samples, the donor's DNA was dominant compared to all other alleles (38% of samples with complete donor profile). Additionally, 51 samples displayed at least more than half of the donor's alleles (28%). The complete DNA profile of the carrier was found in 47 out of 180 samples (42 partial profiles). In summary, it could be shown that a transfer of donor DNA from epithelial cells through a carrier to a second item is possible, even if the carrier does not wear gloves.

Does zero really mean nothing?-first experiences with the new PowerQuant(TM) system in comparison to established real-time quantification kits.

DNA quantification is an important step in the molecular genetic analysis of a forensic sample, hopefully providing reliable data on DNA content for a subsequent generation of reproducible STR profiles for identification. For several years, this quantification has usually been done by real-time PCR protocols and meanwhile a variety of assays are commercially available from different companies. The newest one is the PowerQuant(TM) assay by Promega Inc. which is advertised with the promise that a determined DNA concentration of 0 ng/µl in a forensic sample guarantees the impossibility to achieve true STR results, thus allowing to exclude such samples from STR analysis to save time and money. Thus, the goal of this study was to thoroughly verify the quantification step with regard to its suitability as a screening method. We have evaluated the precision and reliability of four different real-time PCR quantification assays by systematically testing DNA dilutions and forensic samples with various DNA contents. Subsequently, each sample was subjected to the Powerplex® ESX 17 fast kit to determine a reliable cutoff level for exclusion of definitely negative samples from STR analysis. An accurate quantification of different cell line DNA dilutions was not possible with any kit. However, at least the PowerQuant(TM) assay provided suitable data analyzing forensic samples, whereas in other systems up to 46 % of negative samples still displayed reliable STR analysis results. All in all, the PowerQuant(TM) assay represents a big step forward, but the evaluation of real-time PCR quantification results has still to be done with great care.

Assessment of Multiple Annealing and Looping-Based Amplification Cycle-Based Whole-Genome Amplification for Short Tandem Repeat Genotyping of Low Copy Number-DNA.

Aim: A common problem in forensic practice is the lack of sufficient amounts of good quality genomic DNA. A possible solution is the amplification of the available genomic DNA before locus-specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis. The aim of this study was to evaluate multiple annealing and looping-based amplification cycle (MALBAC)-based whole-genome amplification (WGA) for short tandem repeat (STR) genotyping of low copy number DNA (LCN-DNA). Materials and Methods: DNA isolated from five blood samples was quantified and diluted to 250, 150, 100, 50, 25, and 5 pg/µL. After preamplification with MALBAC, WGA products were quantified. PCR-STR genotyping was performed in triplicate using dilution or purification-treated WGA products for each level of DNA. STR profiles were analyzed and compared with that from non-WGA DNA. Results: The purification treatment performed better than dilution of the MALBAC-based WGA products. Compared with the non-WGA DNA, both the average number and peak heights of correct alleles were significantly improved after preamplification with the MALBAC-based WGA at DNA inputs of ≤50 pg. Like other WGA methods, allele dropout and allele drop-in were observed in the profiling results for many samples. Conclusions: MALBAC shows great potential in LCN-DNA analysis and could find broader application in the fields of forensics and genetics.

Evaluation of direct PCR for routine DNA profiling of non-decomposed deceased individuals.

Forensic DNA profiling is a standard method used in the attempt to identify deceased individuals. In routine investigations, and if available, the preferred sample type is usually blood. However, this requires the invasive re-opening of the body, days or weeks after the autopsy, which is undesirable in resource-constrained mortuary settings. Motivated by the ease of sampling as well as reduced health and safety risks, this study aimed to establish the success rate of generating a full DNA profile on first attempt from buccal swab lysates using a direct PCR approach. Buccal swab samples were collected from 100 unidentified deceased males, and were subjected to direct DNA profiling with use of the Promega PowerPlex® Y23 Kit. At the time of sample collection, these individuals had been stored for between 1 and 887 days. This study shows that full DNA profiles were initially obtained from 73% of samples, which constitutes the first empirical data pertaining to first time success rates of direct PCR from post-mortem buccal lysates. Further investigation of partial and failed DNA profiles using real-time PCR showed that samples did not contain PCR inhibitors, DNA was not degraded, but DNA concentration was particularly low. Repeating DNA profiling with increased lysate input and extra PCR cycles yielded an additional six full DNA profiles, resulting in an overall success rate of 79%. Overall, DNA profile success rate was not associated with the duration of storage (p = 0.387). Lastly, massively parallel sequencing with the ForenSeq™ Signature DNA Prep kit provided more informative profiles for three additional samples. These results indicate that blood should therefore remain the sample of choice in a post-mortem setting, yet buccal lysates hold potential to be optimised further, which may ease the human identification workflow.

The successful recovery of low copy number and degraded DNA from bones exposed to seawater suitable for generating a DNA STR profile.

A universal method allowing for DNA profiling from bones exposed to seawater has not been reported yet. This study refers on the identification of a body immersed in seawater for 8 months. The biological material for identification was the mandibular body, usually characterized by low success rates of DNA analysis. Initially, two extraction protocols were performed with negative results: one used for bones immersed in fresh water and a silica-column procedure. A third protocol was performed, which combined the extraction of a higher amount of bone powder, the use of multi-silica-based extraction columns followed by a concentration step. This protocol allowed to obtain low copy number DNA and to generate a 12-loci STR profile by combining conventional STR typing and mini-STR technologies. This protocol could be suitable when human bones have been exposed to severe environmental conditions, and the available nuclear DNA is highly degraded and in low copy number.

The influence of swabbing solutions on DNA recovery from touch samples.

There has been minimal research into how to best obtain DNA from touch samples. Many forensic laboratories simply moisten a swab with water and use it for collecting cells/DNA from evidentiary samples. However, this and other methods have not been objectively studied in order to maximize DNA yields. In this study, fingerprints were collected using swabs moistened with water or laboratory or commercially available detergents, including sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), Triton X-100, Tween 20, Formula 409(®) , and Simple Green(®) . Prints were swabbed, DNA isolated using an organic extraction, yields quantified, and relative yields compared. In all cases, the detergent-based swabbing solutions outperformed water, with SDS and Triton X-100 producing significant increases in yield. Short tandem repeat profiles were consistent with the individuals that placed them. Subsequent analysis of SDS concentrations for collecting touch DNA demonstrated an increase in DNA yield with increasing SDS concentration, with an optimal concentration of approximately 2%.