DNA detection of a temporary and original user of an office space

The role of cats in human DNA transfer

Domestic animals, such as cats and dogs, are present in the majority of Australian households. Recently, questions regarding the possibility that domestic animals can serve as silent witnesses, from whom evidence can be collected, or act as vectors of contamination and transfer, have started to be raised. Yet, little is known regarding the transfer and prevalence of human DNA to and from cats. This study investigated if cats are reservoirs and vectors for human DNA transfer. Twenty cats from 15 households were sampled from 4 different areas (head (fur), back (fur), left (skin) and right (fur)) to obtain information on the background DNA that may be found on an animal. Further, transfer of human DNA to and from an animal, after a short patting contact, was tested. Human DNA was found to be prevalent on all cats. Of the areas sampled, most DNA was collected from the top of the fur from the back followed by the head and right/fur. No or very low quantities of human DNA was recovered from the left (skin) area. Most of the human DNA originated from the owners, but DNA from others was also often present (47 % of samples). Further, the transfer tests demonstrated that human DNA transferred readily to (detected in 45 % of samples) and from (detected in 80 % of samples) cats during patting. These results show that animals can act as reservoirs of human DNA and vectors for human DNA transfer that may need to be considered during evaluative DNA reporting. Furthermore, if an interaction between an animal and a perpetrator is suspected, consideration should be given to collecting DNA evidence from suspected contact areas on an animal.

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.

Presence of Human DNA on Household Dogs and Its Bi-Directional Transfer

Awareness of the factors surrounding the transfer of DNA from a person, item, or surface to another person, item, or surface is highly relevant during investigations of alleged criminal activity. Animals in domestic environments could be a victim, offender, or innocent party associated with a crime. There is, however, very limited knowledge of human DNA transfer, persistence, prevalence, and recovery (DNA TPPR) associated with domestic animals. This pilot study aimed to improve our understanding of DNA TPPR associated with domestic dogs by collecting and analysing samples from various external areas of dogs of various breeds, interactions with humans, and living arrangements, and conducting a series of tests to investigate the possibility of dogs being vectors for the indirect transfer of human DNA. Reference DNA profiles from the dog owners and others living in the same residence were acquired to assist interpretation of the findings. The findings show that human DNA is prevalent on dogs, and in the majority of samples, two-person mixtures are present. Dogs were also found to be vectors for the transfer of human DNA, with DNA transferred from the dog to a gloved hand during patting and a sheet while walking.

Persistence of touch DNA on commonly encountered substrates in different storage conditions

The persistence of touch DNA deposited after realistic handling of items typically encountered in forensic investigations has been the subject of few studies. Understanding the long-term persistence of touch DNA on different substrates in varying conditions can be central to the effective triage of samples for further processing. As the time between an alleged incident and collection of evidence may vary from a few days to years after an alleged event, this study assessed three different common substrates for the persistence of touch DNA over a time span up to 9 months. These substrates included fabric, steel, and rubber, each of which were handled in a way to imitate what may happen during a criminal act. The three substrates were exposed to two different environments for up to 9 months: inside a dark cupboard with no traffic to act as a control and an outside semi-exposed environment. Ten replicates from each of the 3 substrates were tested at 5 time points to create 300 samples. All samples were processed using a standard operating workflow to provide genotype data after exposure to different environments. It was found that the fabric samples produced informative STR profiles (defined here as 12 or more alleles) up to the 9 month timepoint for either environment. The rubber and steel substrates for the inside condition produced informative STR profiles up to the 9 month timepoint, but only generated informative STR profiles for the outside condition up to 3 and 6 months, respectively. These data add to our understanding of the external factors that affect DNA persistence.

Improvements, factors, and influences on DNA recovery from firearms

Touch DNA recovery from firearms can be central to many criminal investigations, yet the generation of DNA profiles from these items remains poor. Currently in Australia, published casework data highlights extremely poor DNA success from samples recovered from firearms. Only between 5% and 25% of samples result in useful DNA data and therefore increasing the success of DNA recovered from firearms is highly important but has not yet been explored in-depth. This study focused on increasing the recovery of DNA from ten firearm components that were held for 15 s. Multiple recovery methods were used, and the resulting genetic data compared. DNA evidence may be deliberately removed from firearms after discharge to hamper forensic investigations, therefore this study examined the effect of wiping down the components or handling them with gloves. A standard double swab and rinse swab recovery method resulted in an average of 73% cellular recovery. A cumulative swab process had the highest average recovery at 86%, although it was found that increasing the DNA yield led to an increase in mixture complexity. Wiping over the components was observed to remove on average 69% of cellular material, compared with 33% when handed with gloves. However, the size and texture of the components affected the efficiency of cellular material removal. The results from this study allow for prioritisation of areas to sample on firearms, as well as suggesting techniques that can be applied for the optimum process of cellular recovery and subsequent generation of STR DNA data.

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 accumulation and transfer within an operational forensic exhibit storeroom

The increased sensitivity of current DNA profiling technologies allows the detection of trace amounts of DNA. With these advancements, there is an increased probability of detecting trace levels of DNA from contamination. Studies which investigate the accumulation and transfer of DNA within forensic laboratories provide insight into the possible mechanisms which may result in the contamination of exhibits. To gain a greater understanding of the level of DNA transfer between exhibit packaging and forensic workspaces, the accumulation of DNA within an operational forensic exhibit storeroom was investigated. Samples were collected from previously cleaned forensic exhibit storeroom shelves at various time points over a 14-week period. To determine the source of accumulating DNA, profiles generated from shelf samples were compared to the laboratory staff elimination database and the profiles generated from exhibits stored on each of the shelves sampled over the course of the study. Additionally, all samples were compared using STRmix™ mixture-to-mixture profile analysis, to identify the presence of common non-staff DNA donors and DNA from exhibits stored on the shelves sampled. As sampling time intervals increased, there was a significant increase in DNA quantity (ng) and number of profile contributors. The shelf height was also observed to influence the number of profile contributors, with higher numbers of contributors being found on lower shelves. DNA profiles generated from the shelf samples were matched to DNA from forensic staff members who enter the storeroom and police employees, who do not enter the storeroom. There were three instances where a common DNA profile contributor was identified between a shelf sample and the profile generated from an exhibit.This study provides insight into whether current exhibit storage procedures are still adequate given the highly sensitive DNA profiling systems currently used.

Comparison of genotyping and weight of evidence results when applying different genotyping strategies on samples from a DNA transfer experiment

In this study, we assessed to what extent data on the subject of TPPR (transfer, persistence, prevalence, recovery) that are obtained through an older STR typing kit can be used in an activity-level evaluation for a case profiled with a more modern STR kit. Newer kits generally hold more loci and may show higher sensitivity especially when reduced reaction volumes are used, and this could increase the evidential value at the source level. On the other hand, the increased genotyping information may invoke a higher number of contributors in the weight of evidence calculations, which could affect the evidential values as well. An activity scenario well explored in earlier studies [1,2] was redone using volunteers with known DNA profiles. DNA extracts were analyzed with three different approaches, namely using the optimal DNA input for (1) an older and (2) a newer STR typing system, and (3) using a standard, volume-based input combined with replicate PCR analysis with only the newer STR kit. The genotyping results were analyzed for various aspects such as percentage detected alleles and relative peak height contribution for background and the contributors known to be involved in the activity. Next, source-level LRs were calculated and the same trends were observed with regard to inclusionary and exclusionary LRs for persons who had or had not been in direct contact with the sampled areas. We subsequently assessed the impact on the outcome of the activity-level evaluation in an exemplary case by applying the assigned probabilities to a Bayesian network. We infer that data from different STR kits can be combined in the activity-level evaluations.

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 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.

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.

What's on the bag? The DNA composition of evidence bags pre- and post-exhibit examination

Current forensic DNA profiling kits and techniques enable the detection of trace amounts of DNA. With advancements in kit sensitivity, there is an increased probability of detecting DNA from contamination. Research into DNA transfer within operational forensic laboratories provides insight into the possible mechanisms that may lead to exhibit contamination. To gain a greater understanding of the potential for evidence bags to act as DNA transfer vectors, the level of DNA accumulating on the exterior of evidence bags during the exhibit examination process was investigated. The exterior of 60 evidence bags were tapelifted before and after the examination of the exhibit inside of the bag resulting in 120 DNA profiles. These DNA profiles were compared to DNA profiles of staff working within the building and samples taken from the exhibit inside the bag. Common DNA profile contributors from each sample were also identified through STRmix™ mixture to mixture analysis. The average DNA quantity and number of profile contributors was higher in samples taken from the bag before exhibit examination than after examination. Fifty six percent of all samples taken identified a match between DNA recovered from the evidence bag and at least one staff member. On 11 bags, a common contributor was identified between the exhibit in the bag and the exhibit package post-examination. In one instance a DNA profile, matching that of a donor, on the exhibit bag before examination was also detected on a sample taken from the exhibit, raising the possibility of outer bag-to-exhibit DNA contamination. This study demonstrates that operational forensic laboratories must consider exhibit packages as a potential source of DNA contamination and evaluate their exhibit handling and storage procedures accordingly.

DNA Transfer in Forensic Science: Recent Progress towards Meeting Challenges

Understanding the factors that may impact the transfer, persistence, prevalence and recovery of DNA (DNA-TPPR), and the availability of data to assign probabilities to DNA quantities and profile types being obtained given particular scenarios and circumstances, is paramount when performing, and giving guidance on, evaluations of DNA findings given activity level propositions (activity level evaluations). In late 2018 and early 2019, three major reviews were published on aspects of DNA-TPPR, with each advocating the need for further research and other actions to support the conduct of DNA-related activity level evaluations. Here, we look at how challenges are being met, primarily by providing a synopsis of DNA-TPPR-related articles published since the conduct of these reviews and briefly exploring some of the actions taken by industry stakeholders towards addressing identified gaps. Much has been carried out in recent years, and efforts continue, to meet the challenges to continually improve the capacity of forensic experts to provide the guidance sought by the judiciary with respect to the transfer of DNA.

Identifying background microbiomes in an evidence recovery laboratory: A preliminary study

16S rRNA profiling of bacterial communities may have forensic utility in the identification or association of individuals involved with criminal activities. Microbial profiling of evidence may, in the future, be performed within environments currently utilised for human DNA recovery, such as a forensic biology laboratory. It would be important to establish the background microbiome of such an environment to determine the potential presence of human or environmental microbial signatures to assist forensic scientists in the appropriate interpretation of target microbial communities. This study sampled various surfaces of an Evidence Recovery Laboratory (ERL) on three occasions including (a) before a monthly deep-clean, (b) immediately following the deep-clean, and (c) immediately after the laboratory's use by a single participant for the purposes of routine item examinations. Microbial profiles were also generated for the involved participant and researcher for comparison purposes. Additionally, human nuclear DNA was profiled for each of the samples collected, using standard forensic profiling techniques, to provide a prospective link to the presence or absence of a background microbial signature within the ERL after its use. Taxonomic distributions across ERL samples revealed no consistent signature of any of the items sampled over time, however, major phyla noted within all ERL samples across the three timepoints were consistent with those found in human skin microbiomes. PCoA plots based on the Unweighted Unifrac metric revealed some clustering between participant microbial reference samples and surfaces of the ERL after use, suggesting that despite a lack of direct contact, and adherence to standard operating procedures (SOPs) suitable for human DNA recovery, microbiomes may be deposited into a forensic setting over time. The reference samples collected from the involved participant and researcher generated full STR profiles. Human DNA was observed to varying degrees in samples taken from the ERL across each of the sampling timepoints. There was no correlation observed between samples that contained or did not contain detectable quantities of human nuclear DNA and microbial profile outputs.

"I've never been at the crime scene!" - gloves as carriers for secondary DNA transfer

Over recent years, DNA profiling techniques have become highly sensitive. Even small amounts of DNA at crime scenes can be analysed leading to new defence strategies. At court, defence lawyers rarely question the existence of a DNA trace (source level) but challenge how the DNA was transferred to the scene (activity level). Nowadays, the most common defence strategy is to claim that somebody else had stolen the defendant's gloves and used them while breaking and entering. In this study we tested this statement. Using gloves made of different material (cloth, leather, rubber) and varying secondary transfer surfaces (wood, metal, glass), we simulated a few of the most likely transfer scenarios that occur during breaking and entering. While we detected the presence of DNA on the outside of 92 of the 98 gloves tested, we observed only one case of secondary transfer in a total of 81 transfer experiments. This data demonstrates that secondary transfer under conditions resembling realistic conditions is a very rare event.

Prevalence of DNA of regular occupants in vehicles

People will deposit, redistribute and remove biological traces when they interact with their environment. Understanding the dynamics of trace DNA is crucial to assess both the optimal sampling strategy to recover traces and the relevance of DNA evidence in the context of a case. This paper addresses the prevalence of DNA of drivers, passengers, and unknown individuals in vehicles. Five vehicles with a regular driver only, and five vehicles with a regular driver and regular passenger have each been sampled at twenty locations. Based on the findings, we propose a sampling strategy for investigative purposes as well as for evaluative purposes when evaluating the findings given scenarios that propose the person-of-interest as either the driver or passenger in a vehicle.

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.