Following the transfer of DNA: How does the presence of background DNA affect the transfer and detection of a target source of DNA?

The detection of blood, semen and saliva through fabrics: A pilot study

This study aimed to identify if biological material could be detected on the opposite side to deposition on fabric by commonly used presumptive and/or secondary tests. Additionally, this study aimed to ascertain if there is a difference in the DNA quantity and quality from samples obtained from both sides of the same substrate: cotton, polyester, denim, or combined viscose and polyester swatches. Blood, semen, or saliva (25 μL) was deposited on one side of 5 replicates of each fabric type and left for 24 h. Blood swatches were tested using Hemastix® and the ABACard® HemaTrace® immunoassay, semen swatches were tested using acid phosphatase (AP) reagent, the ABACard® p30® immunoassay and hematoxylin and eosin staining, and saliva swatches were tested using Phadebas® paper and the RSID-Saliva™ immunoassay. Both sides of each swatch were separately wet/dry swabbed and subjected to DNA analysis. Blood was able to be detected on the underside of all fabrics using both tests. Semen was able to be detected on the underside of swatches using the presumptive AP test but not p30®, and sperm was rarely observed. Saliva was able to be detected by RSID-Saliva™ but not Phadebas® paper when the underside of swatches were tested. Across all biological materials, DNA was able to be recovered from the top side of all 60 swatches. For the underside, DNA was able to be recovered from 54 swatches. Of the 6 swatches that DNA was unable to be recovered from, one sample was from semen and the rest were from saliva. This study has demonstrated that DNA and components of interest in forensically relevant biological material can be recovered from the opposite side to where it was originally deposited, and that observing biological material and/or DNA on one side of fabric does not definitively indicate direct deposition on that side.

The effect of the anti-coagulant EDTA on the deposition and adhesion of whole blood deposits on non-porous substrates

An investigation into whether the addition of a commonly used anti-coagulant agent like ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) has an impact on the adhesion potential of blood to non-porous substrates was conducted. Two non-porous substrates (aluminum and polypropylene) exhibiting six different surface roughness categories (R1-R6) were used as test substrates upon which either whole blood or blood treated with EDTA was deposited. Samples were exposed to different drying periods (24 hours, 48 hours, and 1 week) before undergoing a tapping agitation experiment in order to evaluate the adhesion to the surface. Clear differences in adhesion potential were observed between whole blood and blood treated with EDTA. Blood treated with EDTA displayed a stronger adhesion strength to aluminum after a drying time of 24 h pre-agitation, while whole blood presented with a stronger adhesion strength at the drying time of 48 h and 1 week. Both EDTA-treated and EDTA-untreated blood was shown to dislodge less easily on polypropylene with the only difference observed on smooth surfaces (0.51-1.50 μm surface roughness). Thus, when conducting transfer studies using smooth hydrophobic substrates like polypropylene or considering the likelihood of transfer given specific case scenarios, differences in adhesion strength of blood due to hydrophobic substrate characteristics and a decreased surface area need to be considered. Overall, whole blood displayed a better adhesion strength to aluminum, emphasizing that indirect transfer probability experiments using EDTA blood on substrates like aluminum should take an increased dislodgment tendency into account in their transfer estimations.

Trace DNA Transfer in Co-Working Spaces: The Importance of Background DNA Analysis

The presence of background DNA (bgDNA) can hinder the evaluation of DNA evidence at the activity level, especially when the suspect is expected to be retrieved due to their habitual occupation of the investigated environment. Based on real-life casework circumstances, this study investigates the prevalence, composition, origin, and probable transfer routes of bgDNA found on personal items in situations where their owner and person of interest (POI) share the same workspace. Baseline values of bgDNA were evaluated on the participants' personal items. Secondary and higher degree transfer scenarios of non-self DNA deposition were also investigated. The DNA from co-workers and co-inhabiting partners can be recovered from an individual's personal belongings. Non-self DNA present on the hands and deposited on a sterile surface can generate uninformative profiles. The accumulation of foreign DNA on surfaces over time appears to be crucial for the recovery of comparable profiles, resulting in detectable further transfer onto other surfaces. For a thorough evaluation of touch DNA traces at the activity level, it is necessary to collect information not only about DNA transfer probabilities but also about the presence of the POI as part of the 'baseline' bgDNA of the substrates involved.

Direct and Secondary Transfer of Touch DNA on a Credit Card: Evidence Evaluation Given Activity Level Propositions and Application of Bayesian Networks

In a judiciary setting, questions regarding the mechanisms of transfer, persistence, and recovery of DNA are increasingly more common. The forensic expert is now asked to evaluate the strength of DNA trace evidence at activity level, thus assessing if a trace, given its qualitative and quantitative features, could be the result of an alleged activity. The present study is the reproduction of a real-life casework scenario of illicit credit card use by a co-worker (POI) of its owner (O). After assessing the shedding propensity of the participants, differences in DNA traces' qualitative and quantitative characteristics, given scenarios of primary and secondary transfer of touch DNA on a credit card, a non-porous plastic support, were investigated. A case-specific Bayesian Network to aid statistical evaluation was created and discrete observations, meaning the presence/absence of POI as a major contributor in both traces from direct and secondary transfer, were used to inform the probabilities of disputed activity events. Likelihood Ratios at activity level (LRα) were calculated for each possible outcome resulting from the DNA analysis. In instances where only POI and POI plus an unknown individual are retrieved, the values obtained show moderate to low support in favour of the prosecution proposition.

DNA transfer when using gloves in burglary simulations

Several studies have demonstrated that DNA can be indirectly transferred from an individual onto a surface. Therefore, the presence of DNA that is compatible with a given person does not necessarily mean that this person has touched the surface on which the DNA was recovered. The present work simulates cases, where DNA is recovered on a door handle and compared to several reference DNA profiles. The DNA profile of the trace shares DNA components with a person of interest (POI). When asked about the DNA results, the POI says he has nothing to do with the incident and has never been at the scene. However, a possibility would be that the DNA came from his recently stolen gloves. Someone else, the alternative offender (AO), could have opened the door wearing his gloves (POI's gloves), and transferred his DNA (POI's DNA). Based on the above-mentioned scenario, 60 burglary simulations experiments were carried out to generate data to assess DNA results given these allegations. The quantity and quality of DNA profiles (NGM SElect) recovered when the POI opened/closed the door bare-handed or when someone else performed the same activity but using POI's gloves, were compared. The gloves were regularly worn during at least three months by their owner during the winter. On the contrary, the AO wore them only for two minutes. Among the traces collected on the door handles, less than 50% of the traces led to interpretable DNA profiles. In 30% of the cases (3/10), when the door was opened/closed with bare hands, the DNA found on the door handle led to a mixed DNA profile with the POI's DNA aligning with the major contributor. For the experiments where the AO opened/closed the door with the POI's gloves, the POI's DNA was compatible with 22% (11/50) of the mixed DNA profile, aligning with the major in 8% of the cases (4/50). The DNA profiles of the offices' occupants were observed on the door handles, but not the AO's. In addition to the results of the experiments, we show two examples of how one can assess results observed in casework. Given the possibility of indirect transfer of minute DNA quantities, this research emphasizes the need to evaluate DNA results given the activities when the POI has a legitimate reason that can explain the presence of their DNA.

DNA transfer between worn clothing and flooring surfaces with known histories of use

DNA samples recovered from items of clothing are often attributed to the wearer and one or more individuals who may have contacted the item during an alleged criminal activity. Another scenario often proposed by defence counsel is that DNA was transferred from a previously contacted item/surface unrelated to the activity of interest onto the item of clothing. Under such scenarios, DNA may also be transferred from the clothing to the item/surface with which it comes into contact. One such surface is flooring, upon which clothing may be placed while not being worn or may be contacted during wearing, such as falling or being forced to the ground. This study investigates the transfer of DNA to and from clothing and flooring when different contacts are applied between the two surfaces in an environment representative of what investigators would encounter in routine casework, a residential environment. Participants were provided with two sets of new and unused upper and lower garments to wash then wear for ~8 h inside their own home before storing them in paper evidence bags. The two sets of clothing were taken to a home occupied by unrelated individuals, where one set was placed on the floor ('passive') by the researcher while the other was worn by the participant who laid with their back on the floor, rolled to one side and back, then stood up ('active'). Within the houses sampled, the main bedroom was targeted as flooring types and histories of use were more consistent across houses and less variation in DNA profile composition was previously observed for samples collected in the same room. Samples were collected from predetermined areas of the clothing and flooring where contact did and did not occur. Reference profiles were obtained from wearers and individuals they lived with, as well as occupants of the home. DNA transfer was observed from clothing to flooring and from flooring to clothing in both 'active' and 'passive' situations, though greater where a situation involved the application of pressure and friction ('active'), and only where contact between clothing and flooring occurred. Results from this study inform on the composition of DNA profiles one is likely to obtain from an item of clothing or a flooring surface following a similar contact event between the two substrates and will aid investigators when interpreting DNA evidence recovered in a domestic environment and the activities leading to its transfer and subsequent recovery.

Casework-related DNA transfer on footwear in consideration of the shedder status

DNA evidence on shoes can play an important role in solving a variety of crimes. We investigated the transfer, persistence, prevalence and recovery of DNA (DNAtppr) on shoes (sneakers) and their soles in realistic handling scenarios taking into account the shedder status. This study aims to increase the understanding of the expected composition of DNA profiles and their probative value, providing a basis for activity level assessments. Samples were analyzed using a direct lysis method, suggesting its versatility and increasing the DNA typing success compared to previous studies on footwear. The data showed surface-dependent background DNA (bDNA) levels on shoe soles and prevalence of bDNA on the upper parts of the shoe. The owner of the shoe was allocatable to the mixture for almost every shoe and sampling location. Alternating scenarios of shoe handling were simulated through different pairs of shedders to distinguish shoe owner and subsequent user. Secondary users were attributable to DNA mixtures regardless of shedder status after wearing shoes a single time. The influence of the shedder status follows specific trends in this context. However, particularly intermediate shedders show inconsistent results. The prevalence of bDNA appears to have a greater effect on the impact of the shedder status on DNA profile composition than previously reported. The data help researchers to better resolve suspect statements and determine if a person of interest wore the shoes relevant to the investigation.

Transfer of DNA without contact from used clothing, pillowcases and towels by shaking agitation

DNA is frequently retrieved from commonly used objects or surfaces with no apparent biological stains. This DNA may have come from one or more individuals who directly deposited their DNA, or indirectly transferred the DNA of others, when physically contacting the sampled object or surface. Furthermore, contactless indirect DNA transfer of this 'touch DNA' from fabric substrates was recently demonstrated to be possible in a controlled laboratory environment. The circumstances and extent to which this form of contactless DNA transfer occurs are largely unknown. This study investigated indirect DNA transfer without contact by applying a gentle shaking agitation to used clothing, pillowcases and towels, with known usage and history, of 10 volunteers above the collection zone of the secondary surface. DNA transfer frequently occurred and was possible from all three investigated items. It occurred at levels that often produced informative profiles where transferred profiles closely resembled the profiles generated from the primary item. The outcomes of this study contribute to expanding the understanding of indirect DNA transfer without contact. However, this field would benefit from investigating a wider range of agitations and/or item types with various histories of use to determine the level of transfer and its detectability under different conditions.

Investigation into the prevalence of background DNA on flooring within houses and its transfer to a contacting surface

When sampling an item or surface for DNA, the collection of 'background' DNA (bDNA) from previous use poses an issue as it may impact the detectability of 'target' DNA and the interpretation of the DNA results given alleged activities. This study investigates the prevalence and transferability of bDNA on flooring surfaces within occupied houses under conditions similar to those that are encountered in casework. To assess bDNA presence and transferability, and the impact of how and who contacts the surface, areas used frequently and infrequently were targeted in the kitchen, living room, bedroom and bathroom of five houses, and two samples taken from each area; one directly from the floor and another from a cotton surface after contacting the floor. DNA was detected in 97 % (of 39) of samples collected directly from flooring, with 92 % providing interpretable profiles. DNA was detected in 85 % (of 39) samples collected from cotton swatches after contacting the floors, with 79 % providing interpretable profiles. The overall quantity, number of contributors, and likelihood of observing a major contributor was greater for samples obtained directly from the floor compared to the cotton. In 80 % of samples recovered from cotton, the quantity of DNA recovered was less than 20 % of that which was recovered directly from the floor. Overall, no trend was observed between the level of reported activity by occupants within areas of the same room and the quantity of DNA recovered directly from the flooring, the quantity of DNA transferred to and recovered from the cotton, or the number of contributors in resulting DNA profiles. In contrast, greater quantities of DNA were generally obtained from houses with a greater number of occupants. Profile composition was similar for samples collected from different areas of the same room, irrespective of the level of activity and from where the sample was obtained (i.e. directly from the floor or contacting surface). Occupants were often not detected in DNA profiles collected from rooms they were known to use and could be observed in profiles collected from rooms they reportedly did not use. The findings of this preliminary investigation provide an understanding of the complexities of transfer, persistence, prevalence and recovery of DNA traces in houses occupied by multiple people and highlights the need to consider how and who uses a space, in the investigation of criminal activities where DNA traces are recovered from, or have been in contact with, flooring.

On DNA transfer: The lack and difficulty of systematic research and how to do it better

Since DNA from touched items and surfaces ("touch DNA") can successfully and reliably be analyzed, the question as to how a particular DNA containing sample came to be from where it was recovered is of increasing forensic interest and expert witnesses in court are increasingly challenged to assess for instance whether an incriminatory DNA sample matching to a suspect could have been transferred to the crime scene in an innocent manner and to guess at the probability of such an occurrence. The latter however will frequently entail expressing a subjective probability i.e. simply making a best guess from experience. There is, to the present date, an extensive and complex body of literature on primary, secondary, tertiary and even higher order DNA transfer, its possibility, plausibility, dependency on an array of variables and factors and vast numbers of permutations thereof. However, from our point of view there is a lack of systematic data on DNA transfer with existing research widely varying in quality and relevance. Our aim was, starting from a comprehensive survey of the status quo and appreciating its increasing importance, to in the first part of our review raise consciousness towards the underestimated and insufficiently accounted for complexity of DNA transfer and thus appendant research of forensic scientists serving as expert witnesses in court but also acting in the role of a journal referee to point them to areas of criticism when reviewing a manuscript on DNA transfer. In the second part, we present propositions how to systematize and integrate future research efforts concerning DNA transfer. Also, we present a searchable database providing an extensive overview of the current state of knowledge on DNA transfer, intended to facilitate the identification of relevant studies adding knowledge to a specific question and thus help forensic experts to base their opinion on a broader, more complete and more reproducible selection of studies.

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.

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.