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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |