Compatibility of DNA IQ™, QIAamp® DNA Investigator, and QIAsymphony® DNA Investigator® with various fingerprint treatments
- 451 Downloads
Latent fingerprint and touch DNA are the two most important contact evidence for individualization in forensic science which provide complementary information that can lead to direct and unequivocal identification of the culprit. In order to retrieve useful information from both fingerprints and DNA, which are usually mingled together, one strategy is to perform fingerprint examination prior to DNA analysis since common DNA sampling technique such as swabbing could disturb or even destroy fingerprint details. Here, we describe the compatibility of three automatic DNA extraction systems, namely, DNA IQ™, QIAamp® DNA Investigator, and QIAsymphony® DNA Investigator®, with respective to the effects of various fingerprint detection techniques. Our results demonstrate that Super Glue fingerprint treatment followed by DNA IQ™ extraction shows better effectiveness in DNA profiling. Aluminum powder dusting offers the least interference to the three DNA extraction systems above. Magnetic powder dusting, on the other hand, strongly impedes DNA recovery. Physical Developer is the most intrusive, which yields profiles with poor quality, including lower peak heights, poor peak height ratios, and poor intra-color balance. In terms of the choice of extraction method, DNA IQ™ system is recommended for sampling after fingerprint treatments, but not the two DNA Investigator systems.
KeywordsForensic DNA typing Fingerprint Super Glue Magnetic powder Aluminum powder Physical Developer
We thank Dr. W.M. Sin, the Government Chemist of the Government Laboratory, Dr. F.C. Kwok, the Assistant Government Chemist, Mr. B.K.K. Cheung, the Chief Chemist, Mr. S.C. Dove, the Senior Superintendent of Police, and Mr. C.T. Leung, the Superintendent of Police, for their support and approval of the publication of this work. We thank Dr. K. M. Lai and Mr. C. F. Wu for helpful comments on the manuscript and Ms. S. F. Lam, Mr. Y.M. Lee, and Mr. M.H. Lo for their technical support for this work. We also thank other members of our laboratory for invaluable discussions.
- 7.Raymond JJ, Roux C, Pasquier ED, Sutton J, Lennard C (2004) The effect of common fingerprint detection techniques on the DNA typing of fingerprints deposited on different surfaces. Journal of Forensic Identification 54:22–44Google Scholar
- 8.Roux C, Gill K, Sutton J, Lennard C (1999) Further study to investigate the effect of fingerprint enhancement techniques on the DNA analysis of bloodstains. Journal of Forensic Identification 49:357–376Google Scholar
- 14.Van Hoofstat DE, Deforce DL, Hubert De Pauw IP, Van den Eeckhout EG (1999) DNA typing of fingerprints using capillary electrophoresis: effect of dactyloscopic powders. Electrophoresis 20:2870–2876. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1522-2683(19991001)20:14<2870::AID-ELPS2870>3.0.CO;2-V CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Ip SC, Lin SW, Lai KM (2015) An evaluation of the performance of five extraction methods: Chelex® 100, QIAamp® DNA Blood Mini Kit, QIAamp® DNA Investigator Kit, QIAsymphony® DNA Investigator® Kit and DNA IQ. Science & Justice : Journal of the Forensic Science Society 55:200–208. doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2015.01.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Bandey HL (2014) Fingermark Visualisation Manual, Home Office Centre for Applied Science and Technology (CAST), Sandridge, UKGoogle Scholar
- 20.Trozzi TA, Schwartz RL, Hollars ML, Leighton LD, Schehi SA, Trozzi YE, Wade C (2000) Processing guide for developing latent prints. US Department of Justice, FBI, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar