DNA transfer to placed, stored, and handled drug packaging and knives in houses

Illicit drug distribution: Evaluation of DNA transfer between ziplock bags and capsules

Powders containing illicit substances are frequently poured into capsules and then distributed in small bags to users, often via intermediaries. We report on the transfer of DNA between individuals involved in making, packing, and transporting capsules within ziplock bags (ZLB) via two pathways, each using 10 ZLBs. A two-person chain was created where participant A made and packed the capsules into ZLBs and participant C then carried the bags for four days. A three-person chain was devised where participant A made the capsules, participant B placed the capsules in bags, and participant C carried the bags. The ZLBs were sampled for DNA on the inside, the inner semi-protected portion of the opening, and the outside surface. The exterior of capsules were also sampled along with a storage container. DNA profiling using Verifiler™ Plus was performed with data deconvoluted by STRmix™. Informative DNA profiles were obtained from capsules despite evidence of DNA transfer from the capsules to both storage containers and the inside of the ZLB. The outside of ZLBs yielded complex mixtures, however, the inside of the bag and the exterior of capsules, which had greater protection, yielded profiles with predominately only one to two contributors. This highlights that the inside of the bags and exterior of capsules could be targeted to identify individuals involved in the early packaging stages of the illicit drug pathway while the outside provided more information on recent handling.

Precision touch DNA sampling on plastic bag knots for improved profiling of packer and holder contributions

In forensic DNA analysis, evidence sampling stands as a pivotal step setting the ground for the quality of the forensic profiling. The collection of touch DNA from objects, when guidelines are scarce or absent, is usually governed by ad hoc decisions based on the available case circumstances. In our laboratory, in the context of illicit drug-related crimes, similar objects are frequently encountered, offering an opportunity for the standardization of evidence treatment. This study aims to develop an effective method for sampling touch DNA from knots on plastic bags. We examine both the exposed and hidden areas of knots, considering the latter as "protected" zones less likely to accumulate biological material during subsequent handling. The study contrasts a single sample method (whole knot surface sampling, Method 1) with dual-sample methods that separate exterior (exposed) and interior (hidden) surfaces of the knot. Notably, our study consistently reveals higher DNA yields from exterior surfaces of the knots as opposed to interior samples. Importantly, our findings demonstrate that utilizing a single sample may produce DNA profiles that are not interpretable, while employing a dual-sample approach may allow for the differentiation between the genetic contributions of the person who tied the knot, the packer, from the person who held the package, the holder. We have refined the dual-sample method to reduce holder DNA in the interior sample while maintaining it on the exterior, also allowing the packer's DNA to be detected on both surfaces. We explore four dual-sample collection methods. Method 2 involves taking the first sample from the exterior and the second from the interior of an untied knot. Method 3 visually differentiates between the original exposed and hidden surfaces for precise sampling. Method 4 employs tools to open the knot for interior sampling. Method 5 uses Diamond dye to highlight cell-free DNA on both surfaces before sampling. In conclusion, this study not only clarifies the complex dynamics of touch DNA transfer and collection on plastic bag knots, but also offers insights into standardizing evidence collection in similar cases.

Cell counting to monitor swab efficiency

Plastic bags, such as ziplock bags, have been used to transport illicit materials worldwide; however, very few studies have tried to optimize the recovery of DNA from these items. This study reports on the best combination of swabs and moistening solution for the greatest recovery of cellular material from ziplock bags. Five swabs, two different variations of Copan Diagnostics nylon 4N6FLOQSwabs, one Medical Wire rayon DRYSWAB, one IsoHelix rayon swab, and one Livingstone cotton swab, were evaluated with two moistening solutions, Triton X-100 in either distilled water or isopropanol. Fingermarks were deposited on ziplock bags and stained with Diamond™ Nucleic Acid Dye to allow visualization of the cells pre- and post-swabbing to determine the number of cells recovered. Based on cell counting data, swabs moistened with Triton X-100 in distilled water performed better than those moistened with isopropanol. Livingstone cotton swabs had the worst recovery of cellular material, while the other swabs tested had no significant difference in their respective solutions. A comparison of the best three swabs for cellular recovery yielded no differences in the DNA concentration extracted. A linear relationship was observed between the log number of cells recovered by swabbing and the DNA concentration following extraction and quantification. The process of monitoring cell collection using fluorescence microscopy on ziplock bags allowed evaluation of swabbing efficacy. Additionally, this study highlights the ability to evaluate cellular recovery independently of traditional extraction, quantification, or profiling techniques which may unequally affect samples.

A study of DNA transfers onto plastic packets placed in personal bags

The ability to detect low level DNA brings with it the uncertainty of whether the detected DNA is a result of transfer. To address this uncertainty, a simulation study was conducted in which a mock illicit drug packet was placed into the personal bags of individuals. When the average transit time of the packets was increased from around 2 h to more than 14 h, the percentage of the DNA profiles recovered from the packets which could be attributed to the individuals increased greatly from 5.3% to 48.6%. We found that drug packers who were poor shedders could not be included as contributors to the DNA profiles from the drug packets at all and there was a higher chance that individuals other than themselves could be included as contributors to the DNA profile recovered from drug packets. We also found that it was equally likely that the drug packers who had direct contact with the drug packets and bag owners who did not, could be included as contributors to the DNA profiles recovered from the packets. The results in this study highlight the importance of taking into consideration the transit time of drug packet, the shedder status of the alleged packer and the history of an item, when evaluating DNA evidence in the context of illicit drug activities.

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.