Advertisement

DNA on drugs (part 2): An extended study into the transfer and persistence of DNA onto illicit drug capsules using realistic scenarios

      Highlights

      • Investigated transfer and persistence of DNA onto capsules in two scenarios.
      • Mimicked ecstasy preparation with single handlers and encapsulator (semi-realistic).
      • Mimicked ecstasy preparation involving two handlers (realistic).
      • One or both individuals were detected in 65% of realistic samples.
      • The last person to handle the capsule was not always major contributor.

      Abstract

      Capsules are now the main form of ecstasy rather than tablets in Australia and therefore their examination is of interest to forensic drug chemists in Australia and possibly elsewhere. Recently, we used controlled experimental conditions to show that capsules may be a source of DNA that can be used to identify those involved in production and distribution of illicit drugs. The question remains: in realistic scenarios where there are more unknowns, can we still detect DNA, and determine whose it is, on the exterior of capsules? The concept of comprehensive forensic intelligence and investigations – utilizing both biological and chemical signatures – relating to illicit drug preparations (i.e., the capsules and their contents) may be of great use to law enforcement. Experiments were conducted with both semi-realistic and realistic scenarios where two volunteers were asked to firstly use an encapsulator and mimic the loading of capsules, then Volunteer 1 would count out the capsules that Volunteer 2 prepared, and vice versa. This was to simulate the scenario where one person was involved in the assembly of the capsules which were then separated into smaller bags of 10 capsules by a second person for distribution. Gelatine and vegetable capsules were tested, with 10 replicates used per capsule type, scenario, and volunteer (total n = 80 capsules). Volunteer 2 was included as a contributor to the DNA profiles generated from 100% of samples handled by them within the semi-realistic scenario, whereas the other volunteer could be included as a contributor in 65% of samples. For the realistic scenario, profiles could be generated with the inclusion of both volunteers as profile contributors in 15% of samples and from just one of the volunteers in a further 50% of samples (therefore in total, either both or one of the volunteers were detected in 65% of realistic samples). Surprisingly, it was not necessarily the case that the last person to handle the capsule was the major or only contributor. The potential variability in the DNA quantities that could be deposited onto the capsules of genuine illicit drugs is high and would vary on a case-by-case basis. Nevertheless, this study has indicated that in realistic scenarios where two people are involved in the later stages of illicit drug capsule preparation, that either one or both individuals may be identified, potentially opening new investigative leads for law enforcement agencies as well as offering new information for intelligence-led policing.

      Keywords

      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
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. World Customs Organization, Illicit Trade Report 2019, (2020).

      2. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, European Drug Report 2021: Trends and Developments, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021.

      3. United Nations, World Drug Report 2021, United Nations publication, 2021.

      4. Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, Illicit Drug Data Report 2019–20, (2021).

      5. R. Sutherland, Karlsson, A., Price, O., Uporova, J., Chandrasena, U., Swanton, G.R. D., Bruno, R., Dietze, P., Lenton, S., Salom, C., Grigg, J., Wilson, Y., Eddy, S., Hall, C., C. Daly, Thomas, N., Juckel, J., Degenhardt, L., Farrell, M. & Peacock, A., Australian Drug Trends 2021: Key Findings from the National Ecstasy and Related Drugs Reporting System (EDRS) Interviews, Sydney: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW Sydney, 2021.

      6. Personal communication, the Australian Federal Police, 2022.

      7. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Recent changes in Europe’s MDMA/ecstasy market, EMCDDA Rapid Communication (2016).

        • Payne J.
        • Gaffney A.
        How much crime is drug or alcohol related? Self-reported attributions of police detainees.
        Trends Issues Crime. Crim. Justice. 2012; 439: 1-6
      8. M. Collins, Illicit drug profiling: A historical perspective, Drug Testing and Analysis (2021).

        • Andreasen M.F.
        • Lindholst C.
        • Kaa E.
        Adulterants and diluents in heroin, amphetamine, and cocaine found on the illicit drug market in Aarhus, Denmark.
        Open Forensic Sci. J. 2009; 2: 16-20
        • Harbison S.
        • Fallow M.
        • Bushell D.
        An analysis of the success rate of 908 trace DNA samples submitted to the Crime Sample Database Unit in New Zealand, Australian.
        J. Forensic Sci. 2008; 40: 49-53
        • Wong H.Y.
        • Tan J.
        • Lim Z.G.
        • Kwok R.
        • Lim W.
        • Syn C.K.-C.
        DNA profiling success rates of commonly submitted crime scene items.
        Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. Suppl. Ser. 2019; 7: 597-599
        • Mapes A.A.
        • Kloosterman A.D.
        • van Marion V.
        • de Poot C.J.
        Knowledge on DNA success rates to optimize the DNA analysis process: from crime scene to laboratory.
        J. Forensic Sci. 2016; 61: 1055-1061
        • Krosch M.N.
        Variation in forensic DNA profiling success among sampled items and collection methods: a Queensland perspective, Australian.
        J. Forensic Sci. 2020; : 1-14
        • van Oorschot R.A.
        • Szkuta B.
        • Meakin G.E.
        • Kokshoorn B.
        • Goray M.
        DNA transfer in forensic science: a review.
        Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2019; 38: 140-166
        • Kaesler T.
        • Kirkbride K.P.
        • Linacre A.
        DNA deposited in whole thumbprints: a reproducibility study.
        Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2022; 102683
        • Szkuta B.
        • Ballantyne K.N.
        • van Oorschot R.A.
        Transfer and persistence of DNA on the hands and the influence of activities performed.
        Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2017; 28: 10-20
        • Goray M.
        • Fowler S.
        • Szkuta B.
        • Van R.
        Oorschot, Shedder status—an analysis of self and non-self DNA in multiple handprints deposited by the same individuals over time, Forensic Science.
        Int. Genet. 2016; 23: 190-196
        • Lowe A.
        • Murray C.
        • Whitaker J.
        • Tully G.
        • Gill P.
        The propensity of individuals to deposit DNA and secondary transfer of low level DNA from individuals to inert surfaces.
        Forensic Sci. Int. 2002; 129: 25-34
        • Fonneløp A.E.
        • Egeland T.
        • Gill P.
        Secondary and subsequent DNA transfer during criminal investigation.
        Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2015; 17: 155-162
      9. M. Rolo, L. Sampaio, F. Balsa, A.M. Bento, N. Gouveia, A. Serra, P. Brito, V. Lopes, M. São-Bento, V. Bogas, P. Cunha, M.J. Porto, M.J. Carneiro de Sousa, Assessment of individual shedder status and background DNA on objects: Direct or indirect transfer?, Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series (2019).

        • Goray M.
        • van Oorschot R.
        Shedder status: Exploring means of determination.
        Sci. Justice. 2021;
        • Kanokwongnuwut P.
        • Martin B.
        • Kirkbride K.P.
        • Linacre A.
        Shedding light on shedders.
        Forensic Sci. Int.: Genet. 2018; 36: 20-25
        • Hicks T.
        • Kerr Z.
        • Pugh S.
        • Bright J.-A.
        • Curran J.
        • Taylor D.
        • Buckleton J.
        Comparing multiple POI to DNA mixtures.
        Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2021; 52102481
        • Slooten K.
        The comparison of DNA mixture profiles with multiple persons of interest.
        Forensic Sci. Int.: Genet. 2022; 56102592
        • Taylor D.
        • Bright J.-A.
        • Buckleton J.
        The interpretation of single source and mixed DNA profiles, Forensic Science.
        Int. Genet. 2013; 7: 516-528
        • Kelly H.
        • Bright J.-A.
        • Kruijver M.
        • Taylor D.
        • Buckleton J.
        The effect of a user selected number of contributors within the LR assignment, Australian.
        J. Forensic Sci. 2021; : 1-14
        • Moretti T.R.
        • Just R.S.
        • Kehl S.C.
        • Willis L.E.
        • Buckleton J.S.
        • Bright J.-A.
        • Taylor D.A.
        • Onorato A.J.
        Internal validation of STRmixTM for the interpretation of single source and mixed DNA profiles, Forensic Science.
        Int. Genet. 2017; 29: 126-144
        • McGovern C.
        • Cheng K.
        • Kelly H.
        • Ciecko A.
        • Taylor D.
        • Buckleton J.S.
        • Bright J.-A.
        Performance of a method for weighting a range in the number of contributors in probabilistic genotyping.
        Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2020; 48102352
        • van Oorschot R.A.
        • Glavich G.
        • Mitchell R.J.
        Persistence of DNA deposited by the original user on objects after subsequent use by a second person, Forensic Science.
        Int. Genet. 2014; 8: 219-225
        • Oldoni F.
        • Castella V.
        • Hall D.
        Shedding light on the relative DNA contribution of two persons handling the same object.
        Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2016; 24: 148-157
      10. Australian Border Force, Tablet Presses and Encapsulators - Amendments to the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956, 2020.

        • Griffin A.
        • Kirkbride K.P.
        • Henry J.
        • Painter B.
        • Linacre A.
        DNA on drugs! A preliminary investigation of DNA deposition during the handling of illicit drug capsules.
        Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2021; 54102559
      11. The Capsule Guy, CapmQuik Capsule filler machine with Tamper. https://gelcapsules.com.au/collections/frontpage/products/cap-m-quik?variant=7207674372, 2019).

      12. D. Teschner, How-To-Use The CAP-M-QUIK. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0tnZQjpucU&ab_channel=DerekTeschner, 2014).

        • Catoggio D.
        • Bunford J.
        • Taylor D.
        • Wevers G.
        • Ballantyne K.
        • Morgan R.
        An introductory guide to evaluative reporting in forensic science, Australian.
        J. Forensic Sci. 51(sup1). 2019; : S247-S251