- •Partitioning tapelifts into multiple sections for numerous direct PCRs was tested.
- •Substrate type and donor were significant for DNA profiling success and LR support.
- •Intra- tapelift samples clustered more closely than inter- tapelift samples.
- •Profile to profile comparisons showed high similarity for intra- tapelift samples.
- •Direct PCR and extraction portions taken from a single tapelift showed concordance.
Although a version of direct PCR is implemented in forensic laboratories for reference material, its incorporation into workflow for the analysis of touch DNA, as a form of latent DNA, from casework exhibits is not. In addition to concerns about increased sensitivity causing more complex mixtures or the generation of more genetic data implicating an individual superfluous to the context of the alleged event, the complete use of the collected sample in the PCR as template has meant that there is no possibility for data reproducibility when needed. Here it is proposed that the use of tapelifts in touch DNA collection can facilitate replicate direct PCR analysis from a single sample allowing the sample to be re-tested. If all portions of the tapelift result in profiles with allelic and likelihood ratio concordance, these sub-samples may be accepted as technical replicates, thus meeting any accreditation guideline requirements. Furthermore, we assess the use of a single tapelift for both direct PCR and extraction-based PCR workflows to illustrate the potential for benefits of both systems to be facilitated. DNA was deposited by three donors onto six substrates with five sample replicates of each condition. Separation of each tapelift into three portions for three direct PCRs ensued using VeriFiler™ Plus. Separation of single tapelifts into three direct PCRs showed no statistical difference in donor allele calls or RFU, or subsequent LRs associated with their profiles. Comparison of profiles within the single tapelift showed more similarity, with high mixture-to-mixture match likelihoods, than when these sub-samples were compared with profiles generated from other samples. This allows each sub-sample taken from the tapelift to be considered as technical replicates. For dual workflow facilitation assessment, one donor deposited DNA through touch onto six substrates with five research replicates of each. Separation of single tapelifts into two portions, one for direct PCR and the retention and use of the remaining portion for extraction and subsequent PCR, showed no significant difference in allelic yield and subsequent donor comparison LRs. Comparison of deconvoluted profiles produced from a single tapelift showed high mixture-to-mixture match likelihoods, supporting DNA donor concordance. This indicates that removing a portion of a tapelift for direct PCR amplification, while processing the remainder through standard processes, allows increased sensitivity through direct PCR while offering the preparation of an eluate suitable for repeated analyses.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to Forensic Science International: Genetics
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- Direct PCR: a review of use and limitations.Sci. Justice. 2020; 60: 303-310
- Direct PCR amplification of forensic touch and other challenging DNA samples: A review.Forensic Sci. Int.: Genet. 2018; 32: 40-49
- Direct amplification of casework bloodstains using the Promega PowerPlex® 21 PCR Amplification System.Forensic Sci. Int.: Genet. 2014; 12: 86-92
- Application of direct PCR in forensic casework.Forensic Sci. Int.: Genet. Suppl. Ser. 2013; 4: e47-e48
- Direct amplification of reference samples with Globalfiler® PCR Amplification Kit.Forensic Sci. Int.: Genet. Suppl. Ser. 2015; 5: e135-e137
- Successful STR Amplification of Post-Blast IED Samples by Fluorescent Visualisation and Direct PCR.Forensic Sci. Int.: Genet. 2020; 46102256
- DNA profiles from fingernails using direct PCR.Forensic Sci., Med., Pathol. 2015; 11: 99-103
- Direct PCR Improves the Recovery of DNA from Various Substrates.J. Forensic Sci. 2015; 60: 1558-1562
- DNA profiles generated from a range of touched sample types.Forensic Sci. Int.: Genet. 2018; 36: 13-19
- DNA profiles from fingermarks: a mock case study.Forensic Sci. Int.: Genet. Suppl. Ser. 2015; 5: e154-e155
- Direct PCR improves STR profiles from substrate of improvised explosive device.Forensic Sci. Int.: Genet. Suppl. Ser. 2017; 6: e507-e509
- An evaluation of direct PCR amplification.Croat. Med. J. 2014; 55: 655-661
- Recommended minimum criteria for the validation of various aspects of the DNA profiling process.European Network of Forensic Science Institute, Germany2010
- Qual. Assur. Stand. Forensic DNA Test. Lab. 2011; : 29
- ISO 17025 Gen. Accrédit. Guid. - Valid. Verif. Quant. Qual. Test. Methods. 2018; : 31
Preservation of biological evidence, in 18 § 3600A, U.S. Code, Editor.
Criminal Justice Standards; DNA Evidence, American Bar Association, Editor.: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/publications/criminal_justice_section_archive/crimjust_standards_dnaevidence/#2.5.
- Eval. Forensic DNA Evid. 1996;
- An analysis of the success rate of 908 trace DNA samples submitted to the Crime Sample Database Unit in New Zealand.Aust. J. Forensic Sci. 2008; 40: 49-53
- Variation in forensic DNA profiling success among sampled items and collection methods: a Queensland perspective.Aust. J. Forensic Sci. 2020; : 1-14
- DNA profiles from matchsticks.Aust. J. Forensic Sci. 2019; 51: 1-5
- Shedding light on shedders.Forensic Sci. Int.: Genet. 2018; 36: 20-25
- A comparison between direct PCR and extraction to generate DNA profiles from samples retrieved from various substrates.Forensic Sci. Int.: Genet. 2012; 6: 407-412
- Direct PCR as a rapid and simple forensic technique for detection of DNA profiles from human hair samples.J. Biosci. Appl. Res. 2017; 3: 90-96
- Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary.Oxford university press, Oxford2000
- Distinguishing between biological and technical replicates in hypertension research on isolated arteries.Front. Med. 2019; 6: 126
- Validation of STR typing by capillary electrophoresis.J. Forensic Sci. 2001; 46: 661-676
- Bias in template-to-product ratios in multitemplate PCR.Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1998; 64: 3724-3730
- Replicates and repeats—what is the difference and is it significant? A brief discussion of statistics and experimental design.EMBO Rep. 2012; 13: 291-296
- Reproducibility and Replicability in Science.National Academies Press, 2019
- DNA profiles from clothing fibers using direct PCR.Forensic Sci., Med., Pathol. 2016; 12: 331-335
- A protocol for direct and rapid multiplex PCR amplification on forensically relevant samples.Forensic Sci. Int.: Genet. 2012; 6: 167-175
- How many cells are required for successful DNA profiling?.Forensic Sci. Int.: Genet. 2021; 51102453
- N. Version STRmix™ Allows more Complex Profiles be Interpret. faster. 2020;
- R: A Lang. Environ. Stat. Comput. 2013;
- Evaluation of tapelifting as a collection method for touch DNA.Forensic Sci. Int.: Genet. 2014; 8: 179-186
- Recovery of trace DNA on clothing: a comparison of mini‐tape lifting and three other forensic evidence collection techniques..J. Forensic Sci. 2017; 62: 187-191
- The transfer of touch DNA from hands to glass, fabric and wood.Forensic Sci. Int.: Genet. 2012; 6: 41-46
- Trace DNA success rates relating to volume crime offences.Forensic Sci. Int.: Genet. Suppl. Ser. 2009; 2: 136-137
- DNA fingerprints from fingerprints.Nature. 1997; 387: 767
- Assessment of diamond™ nucleic acid dye for the identification and targeted sampling of latent DNA in operational casework.Forensic Sci. Int.: Genet. 2021; 55102579
Published online: December 10, 2021
Accepted: December 8, 2021
Received in revised form: October 28, 2021
Received: September 7, 2021
© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.