Comparison of Swabbing and Cutting-out DNA Collection Methods from Cotton, Paper, and Cardboard Surfaces

Overview

Journal Forensic Sci Int Synerg

Specialty Forensic Sciences

Date 2024 Jan 29

PMID 38283046

Authors

Agnieszka Kuffel

Niamh Nic Daeid

Alexander Gray

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Choosing an inappropriate method of sample collection can often have a detrimental impact on DNA recovery. Multiple studies highlight the importance of selecting the recovery method based on the type of surface the DNA sample is located on. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of sample collection via the single cotton swabbing method in comparison to recovery directly from the material cut from the surface. The three types of surfaces included cotton, paper, and cardboard. DNA sources comprised cell-free and cellular DNA, as well as blood and saliva as examples of body fluids commonly encountered at crime scenes. The data analysis revealed that the cutting-out method resulted in higher DNA recovery from all but cardboard surfaces, making it the more efficient collection method. Despite its limitations, the cutting-out method should be considered as the DNA recovery method of choice when suitable.

Citing Articles

Impact of swabbing solutions on the recovery of biological material from non-porous surfaces.

Kuffel A, Daeid N, Gray A Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2024; 9:100551.

PMID: 39281425 PMC: 11399651. DOI: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2024.100551.

References

Arsenault H, Daeid N, Gray A . A synthetic fingerprint solution and its importance in DNA transfer, persistence and recovery studies. Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2023; 6:100330. PMC: 10209804. DOI: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2023.100330. View

Petricevic S, Bright J, Cockerton S . DNA profiling of trace DNA recovered from bedding. Forensic Sci Int. 2005; 159(1):21-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.06.004. View

Barash M, Reshef A, Brauner P . The use of adhesive tape for recovery of DNA from crime scene items. J Forensic Sci. 2010; 55(4):1058-64. DOI: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01416.x. View

Comte J, Baechler S, Gervaix J, Lock E, Milon M, Delemont O . Touch DNA collection - Performance of four different swabs. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2019; 43:102113. DOI: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2019.06.014. View

Ochert A, Boulter A, BIRNBAUM W, Johnson N, Teo C . Inhibitory effect of salivary fluids on PCR: potency and removal. PCR Methods Appl. 1994; 3(6):365-8. DOI: 10.1101/gr.3.6.365. View

Verdon T, Mitchell R, van Oorschot R . Evaluation of tapelifting as a collection method for touch DNA. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2013; 8(1):179-86. DOI: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2013.09.005. View

VAN Holde K, Allen J, Tatchell K, Weischet W, Lohr D . DNA-histone interactions in nucleosomes. Biophys J. 1980; 32(1):271-82. PMC: 1327304. DOI: 10.1016/S0006-3495(80)84956-3. View

Wahrer J, Kehm S, Allen M, Brauer L, Eidam O, Seiberle I . The DNA-Buster: The evaluation of an alternative DNA recovery approach. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2023; 64:102830. DOI: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2023.102830. View

Dierig L, Schmidt M, Wiegand P . Looking for the pinpoint: Optimizing identification, recovery and DNA extraction of micro traces in forensic casework. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2019; 44:102191. DOI: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2019.102191. View

10.

DeAngelis M, Wang D, HAWKINS T . Solid-phase reversible immobilization for the isolation of PCR products. Nucleic Acids Res. 1995; 23(22):4742-3. PMC: 307455. DOI: 10.1093/nar/23.22.4742. View

11.

Gray A, Kuffel A, Daeid N . An improved rapid method for DNA recovery from cotton swabs. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2023; 64:102848. DOI: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2023.102848. View

12.

Kirgiz I, Calloway C . Increased recovery of touch DNA evidence using FTA paper compared to conventional collection methods. J Forensic Leg Med. 2017; 47:9-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.jflm.2017.01.007. View

13.

Tozzo P, Mazzobel E, Marcante B, Delicati A, Caenazzo L . Touch DNA Sampling Methods: Efficacy Evaluation and Systematic Review. Int J Mol Sci. 2022; 23(24). PMC: 9779423. DOI: 10.3390/ijms232415541. View

14.

Pirlea S, Puiu M, Raducan A, Oancea D . Permanganate-assisted removal of PCR inhibitors during the DNA Chelex extraction from stained denim samples. Int J Legal Med. 2016; 131(2):323-331. DOI: 10.1007/s00414-016-1443-z. View

15.

Prasad E, Hitchcock C, Raymond J, Cole A, Barash M, McNevin D . Touch DNA recovery from unfired and fired cartridges: Comparison of swabbing, tape lifting and soaking. Forensic Sci Int. 2021; 330:111101. DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2021.111101. View

16.

Rydberg B . Radiation-induced DNA damage and chromatin structure. Acta Oncol. 2002; 40(6):682-5. DOI: 10.1080/02841860152619070. View

17.

Akane A, Matsubara K, Nakamura H, Takahashi S, Kimura K . Identification of the heme compound copurified with deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) from bloodstains, a major inhibitor of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification. J Forensic Sci. 1994; 39(2):362-72. View

18.

Sessa F, Salerno M, Bertozzi G, Messina G, Ricci P, Ledda C . Touch DNA: impact of handling time on touch deposit and evaluation of different recovery techniques: An experimental study. Sci Rep. 2019; 9(1):9542. PMC: 6606590. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-46051-9. View

19.

Seiberle I, Wahrer J, Kron S, Flury K, Girardin M, Schocker A . Collaborative swab performance comparison and the impact of sampling solution volumes on DNA recovery. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2022; 59:102716. DOI: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2022.102716. View

20.

Hedman J, Jansson L, Akel Y, Wallmark N, Gutierrez Liljestrand R, Forsberg C . The double-swab technique versus single swabs for human DNA recovery from various surfaces. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2020; 46:102253. DOI: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2020.102253. View