Casework direct kit as an alternative extraction method to enhance touch DNA samples analysis

Single cell genomics applications in forensic science: Current state and future directions

Standard methods of mixture analysis involve subjecting a dried crime scene sample to a "bulk" DNA extraction method such that the resulting isolate compromises a homogenized DNA mixture from the individual donors. If, however, instead of bulk DNA extraction, a sufficient number of individual cells from the mixed stain are subsampled prior to genetic analysis then it should be possible to recover highly probative single source, non-mixed scDNA profiles from each of the donors. This approach can detect low DNA level minor donors to a mixture that otherwise would not be identified using standard methods and can also resolve rare mixtures comprising first degree relatives and thereby also prevent the false inclusion of non-donor relatives. This literature landscape review and associated commentary reports on the history and increasing interest in current and potential future applications of scDNA in forensic genomics, and critically evaluates opportunities and impediments to further progress.

Effect of swabbing technique and duration on forensic DNA recovery

Various factors have been shown to affect performance of the conventional wet-dry double and single wet swabbing techniques to recover DNA, such as pressure and angle of application, volume and type of wetting agent, and swab type. However, casework laboratories in some jurisdictions have recently adopted different swabbing techniques that include wet-moist double swabbing and moist-dry single swabbing. Factors affecting the effectiveness of these recent techniques in maximising DNA recovery therefore need to be investigated. Here, the performance of traditional and recent swabbing techniques was compared and the impact of swabbing duration on DNA recovery was investigated. Ten µl aliquots of a known concentration of DNA extracted from human blood were deposited on pre-cleaned DNA-free cotton swatches (porous) and porcelain tiles (non-porous). Five swabbing techniques were used, of which three were double swabbing techniques: wet-moist, wet-wet and wet-dry, and two were single swabbing techniques: wet and moist-dry. For a 'wet' or 'moist' swab, 100 or 50 µL water was added, respectively. For a moist-dry swab, water was applied to one side of the swab, leaving the other side drier. Each swabbing technique was applied for two durations, 15 and 30 s per swab, with 5 reps of each combination (n = 100 plus controls). All samples were extracted and quantified, and a sub-set was profiled. The results showed that the wet-moist double swabbing technique with a swabbing duration of 30 s maximised DNA recovery from cotton. From tile, a single wet or moist-dry swab maximised DNA recovery, but increasing swabbing duration from 15 to 30 s had no impact. These data can be used to inform standardisation of DNA collection protocols across casework laboratories.

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.

The effect of NucleoSpin® Forensic Filters on DNA recovery from trace DNA swabs

Forensic DNA profiling is a globally accepted method for human identification, however, obtaining full DNA profiles from trace DNA can be challenging. The optimal recovery of DNA from trace DNA swabs is therefore crucial. Methods for extracting DNA from swabs often make use of a spin basket combined with a centrifugation step, to enhance the release of cells from the swab prior to DNA extraction. The NucleoSpin® Forensic Filter (Macherey-Nagel, Düren) is a type of spin basket, but it has not been thoroughly assessed on trace DNA samples. This study aimed to assess if the inclusion of the NucleoSpin® Forensic Filter significantly improved DNA recovery and DNA profiling success from cotton and flocked swabs used to collect trace DNA and buccal cells (control). Buccal cells and trace DNA samples were collected from 25 volunteers using each swab type (cotton and flocked) in duplicate. DNA was extracted from the samples using the NucleoSpin® DNA Forensic kit, one set with, and the other set without, NucleoSpin® Forensic Filters. DNA concentration was assessed using real time PCR, and DNA profiling was done using the PowerPlex® ESX 16 system. The inclusion of the NucleoSpin® Forensic Filters significantly improved DNA concentration for buccal cells that were collected using flocked swabs (p = 0.035). However, no significant differences were noted for trace DNA samples for either swab type. There was also no significant difference in DNA profiling success when NucleoSpin® Forensic Filters were used, regardless of swab and sample type. These results may be helpful for laboratories that are considering the NucleoSpin® Forensic Filters in the DNA extraction workflow, particularly for trace DNA samples.

Review of direct PCR and Rapid DNA approaches to streamline sexual assault kit testing

Crime laboratories have been faced with large casework backlogs due to lengthy processing times, limited resources and scientists, and rising crime rates. Evidence related to sexual assault crimes, specifically sexual assault kits (SAKs), heavily contribute to the reported backlogs. Although more sensitive, faster chemistries and automated techniques have been implemented over the years, the traditional STR workflow remains relatively unchanged. Enhanced workflows such as direct PCR and Rapid DNA have the potential to streamline the processing of forensic evidence items including those commonly submitted in SAKs, but the FBI QAS guidelines restrict CODIS-approved labs from implementing these methods for forensic samples. Recent studies have shown decreased turnaround times and improved or comparable profiling success with both approaches. However, review of the literature shows a lack of in-depth research comparing traditional DNA workflows to faster and more sensitive direct PCR and/or Rapid DNA approaches for evidentiary samples, especially for SAKs. By providing the forensic science and criminal justice communities with the strengths and limitations of direct PCR and Rapid DNA methods, stakeholders and policy makers may be better informed.

Alternative direct‐to‐amplification sperm cell lysis techniques for sexual assault sample processing

The prevalence of sexual assault cases and increasingly sensitive DNA analysis methods have resulted in sexual assault kit backlogs in the United States. Although traditional DNA extraction and purification utilizing detergents, proteinase K, and DTT have been the primary technique for lysing sperm cell fractions from these samples, it is labor‐intensive and inefficient regarding time and sperm DNA recovery – hindering the ability of forensic analysts to keep pace with evidence submissions. Thus, this study examined seven alternative sperm cell lysis techniques to develop a method that could efficiently lyse sperm and consistently generate high‐quality profiles while also reducing time, labor, and cost requirements. Microscopic examination of lysates indicated only Casework Direct and alkaline techniques could lyse all spermatozoa within samples, while quantification results demonstrated all methods performed comparably to the control method of forensicGEM™ Sperm (p > 0.06). Amplification with 0.25 ng DNA revealed that unpurified lysates from Casework Direct, alkaline, and NP‐40 techniques produced DNA profiles with acceptable mean STR peak heights and interlocus balance, both of which were similar to or better than the control. Overall, this study demonstrated the ability of Casework Direct, alkaline, and NP‐40 methods to efficiently lyse spermatozoa and provide high‐quality STR profiles despite the absence of a purification step. Ultimately, based on the data reported herein, alkaline lysis is the recommended alternative sperm lysis approach given its ability to generate high‐quality profiles, save time, and decrease the cost per reaction when compared to traditional sperm cell lysis methods.

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.