Cargando…

Touch DNA Sampling Methods: Efficacy Evaluation and Systematic Review

Collection and interpretation of “touch DNA” from crime scenes represent crucial steps during criminal investigations, with clear consequences in courtrooms. Although the main aspects of this type of evidence have been extensively studied, some controversial issues remain. For instance, there is no...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tozzo, Pamela, Mazzobel, Enrico, Marcante, Beatrice, Delicati, Arianna, Caenazzo, Luciana
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9779423/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36555182
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms232415541
_version_ 1784856606065819648
author Tozzo, Pamela
Mazzobel, Enrico
Marcante, Beatrice
Delicati, Arianna
Caenazzo, Luciana
author_facet Tozzo, Pamela
Mazzobel, Enrico
Marcante, Beatrice
Delicati, Arianna
Caenazzo, Luciana
author_sort Tozzo, Pamela
collection PubMed
description Collection and interpretation of “touch DNA” from crime scenes represent crucial steps during criminal investigations, with clear consequences in courtrooms. Although the main aspects of this type of evidence have been extensively studied, some controversial issues remain. For instance, there is no conclusive evidence indicating which sampling method results in the highest rate of biological material recovery. Thus, this study aimed to describe the actual considerations on touch DNA and to compare three different sampling procedures, which were “single-swab”, “double-swab”, and “other methods” (i.e., cutting out, adhesive tape, FTA(®) paper scraping), based on the experimental results published in the recent literature. The data analysis performed shows the higher efficiency of the single-swab method in DNA recovery in a wide variety of experimental settings. On the contrary, the double-swab technique and other methods do not seem to improve recovery rates. Despite the apparent discrepancy with previous research, these results underline certain limitations inherent to the sampling procedures investigated. The application of this information to forensic investigations and laboratories could improve operative standard procedures and enhance this almost fundamental investigative tool’s probative value.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9779423
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97794232022-12-23 Touch DNA Sampling Methods: Efficacy Evaluation and Systematic Review Tozzo, Pamela Mazzobel, Enrico Marcante, Beatrice Delicati, Arianna Caenazzo, Luciana Int J Mol Sci Review Collection and interpretation of “touch DNA” from crime scenes represent crucial steps during criminal investigations, with clear consequences in courtrooms. Although the main aspects of this type of evidence have been extensively studied, some controversial issues remain. For instance, there is no conclusive evidence indicating which sampling method results in the highest rate of biological material recovery. Thus, this study aimed to describe the actual considerations on touch DNA and to compare three different sampling procedures, which were “single-swab”, “double-swab”, and “other methods” (i.e., cutting out, adhesive tape, FTA(®) paper scraping), based on the experimental results published in the recent literature. The data analysis performed shows the higher efficiency of the single-swab method in DNA recovery in a wide variety of experimental settings. On the contrary, the double-swab technique and other methods do not seem to improve recovery rates. Despite the apparent discrepancy with previous research, these results underline certain limitations inherent to the sampling procedures investigated. The application of this information to forensic investigations and laboratories could improve operative standard procedures and enhance this almost fundamental investigative tool’s probative value. MDPI 2022-12-08 /pmc/articles/PMC9779423/ /pubmed/36555182 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms232415541 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Tozzo, Pamela
Mazzobel, Enrico
Marcante, Beatrice
Delicati, Arianna
Caenazzo, Luciana
Touch DNA Sampling Methods: Efficacy Evaluation and Systematic Review
title Touch DNA Sampling Methods: Efficacy Evaluation and Systematic Review
title_full Touch DNA Sampling Methods: Efficacy Evaluation and Systematic Review
title_fullStr Touch DNA Sampling Methods: Efficacy Evaluation and Systematic Review
title_full_unstemmed Touch DNA Sampling Methods: Efficacy Evaluation and Systematic Review
title_short Touch DNA Sampling Methods: Efficacy Evaluation and Systematic Review
title_sort touch dna sampling methods: efficacy evaluation and systematic review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9779423/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36555182
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms232415541
work_keys_str_mv AT tozzopamela touchdnasamplingmethodsefficacyevaluationandsystematicreview
AT mazzobelenrico touchdnasamplingmethodsefficacyevaluationandsystematicreview
AT marcantebeatrice touchdnasamplingmethodsefficacyevaluationandsystematicreview
AT delicatiarianna touchdnasamplingmethodsefficacyevaluationandsystematicreview
AT caenazzoluciana touchdnasamplingmethodsefficacyevaluationandsystematicreview