Cargando…

Comparison of Isohelix™ and Rayon swabbing systems for touch DNA recovery from metal surfaces

A previous study evaluating two swabbing systems found that DNA was best recovered from sterile metal substrates using an Isohelix™ swab wetted with isopropyl alcohol rather than a Rayon swab with water as the wetting agent. We tested the same swabbing systems on metal (aluminum, brass, and stainles...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bonsu, Dan O. M., Rodie, Matthew, Higgins, Denice, Henry, Julianne, Austin, Jeremy J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8528942/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34674113
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12024-021-00423-8
_version_ 1784586355809976320
author Bonsu, Dan O. M.
Rodie, Matthew
Higgins, Denice
Henry, Julianne
Austin, Jeremy J.
author_facet Bonsu, Dan O. M.
Rodie, Matthew
Higgins, Denice
Henry, Julianne
Austin, Jeremy J.
author_sort Bonsu, Dan O. M.
collection PubMed
description A previous study evaluating two swabbing systems found that DNA was best recovered from sterile metal substrates using an Isohelix™ swab wetted with isopropyl alcohol rather than a Rayon swab with water as the wetting agent. We tested the same swabbing systems on metal (aluminum, brass, and stainless steel) and plastic substrates in a regularly touched environment to simulate the non-deliberate transfer of touch evidence likely seen in a casework scenario, to ascertain the performance of these swabs in an uncontrolled situation. Higher amounts of touch DNA were recovered with Isohelix™ swabs (0.5 – 3.3 ng) compared to Rayon swabs (0.13 – 1.2 ng). The Isohelix™ swabbing system was found to significantly recover more touch DNA (p = 0.04) from the metal substrates than the Rayon swabbing system, consistent with the findings of our previous work. The results contribute to our understanding of the impact of sample collection techniques on touch DNA recovery from problematic metal surfaces and suggest that supplemental cleaning of substrates as a precautionary step against the spread of infections may affect touch DNA persistence and the recovery efficiency of swabs. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12024-021-00423-8.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8528942
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85289422021-10-21 Comparison of Isohelix™ and Rayon swabbing systems for touch DNA recovery from metal surfaces Bonsu, Dan O. M. Rodie, Matthew Higgins, Denice Henry, Julianne Austin, Jeremy J. Forensic Sci Med Pathol Original Article A previous study evaluating two swabbing systems found that DNA was best recovered from sterile metal substrates using an Isohelix™ swab wetted with isopropyl alcohol rather than a Rayon swab with water as the wetting agent. We tested the same swabbing systems on metal (aluminum, brass, and stainless steel) and plastic substrates in a regularly touched environment to simulate the non-deliberate transfer of touch evidence likely seen in a casework scenario, to ascertain the performance of these swabs in an uncontrolled situation. Higher amounts of touch DNA were recovered with Isohelix™ swabs (0.5 – 3.3 ng) compared to Rayon swabs (0.13 – 1.2 ng). The Isohelix™ swabbing system was found to significantly recover more touch DNA (p = 0.04) from the metal substrates than the Rayon swabbing system, consistent with the findings of our previous work. The results contribute to our understanding of the impact of sample collection techniques on touch DNA recovery from problematic metal surfaces and suggest that supplemental cleaning of substrates as a precautionary step against the spread of infections may affect touch DNA persistence and the recovery efficiency of swabs. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12024-021-00423-8. Springer US 2021-10-21 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8528942/ /pubmed/34674113 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12024-021-00423-8 Text en © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2021 This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.
spellingShingle Original Article
Bonsu, Dan O. M.
Rodie, Matthew
Higgins, Denice
Henry, Julianne
Austin, Jeremy J.
Comparison of Isohelix™ and Rayon swabbing systems for touch DNA recovery from metal surfaces
title Comparison of Isohelix™ and Rayon swabbing systems for touch DNA recovery from metal surfaces
title_full Comparison of Isohelix™ and Rayon swabbing systems for touch DNA recovery from metal surfaces
title_fullStr Comparison of Isohelix™ and Rayon swabbing systems for touch DNA recovery from metal surfaces
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Isohelix™ and Rayon swabbing systems for touch DNA recovery from metal surfaces
title_short Comparison of Isohelix™ and Rayon swabbing systems for touch DNA recovery from metal surfaces
title_sort comparison of isohelix™ and rayon swabbing systems for touch dna recovery from metal surfaces
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8528942/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34674113
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12024-021-00423-8
work_keys_str_mv AT bonsudanom comparisonofisohelixandrayonswabbingsystemsfortouchdnarecoveryfrommetalsurfaces
AT rodiematthew comparisonofisohelixandrayonswabbingsystemsfortouchdnarecoveryfrommetalsurfaces
AT higginsdenice comparisonofisohelixandrayonswabbingsystemsfortouchdnarecoveryfrommetalsurfaces
AT henryjulianne comparisonofisohelixandrayonswabbingsystemsfortouchdnarecoveryfrommetalsurfaces
AT austinjeremyj comparisonofisohelixandrayonswabbingsystemsfortouchdnarecoveryfrommetalsurfaces