Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32170495›Full record

ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2020

Persistence and detection of touch DNA and blood stain DNA on pig skin exposed to water.

Eva Meixner, Venus Kallupurackal, Adelgunde Kratzer, Pamela Voegeli, Michael J Thali, Stephan A Bolliger

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Touch DNA Sampling Methods: Efficacy Evaluation and Systematic Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Eva Meixner *Department of Forensic Medicine and Imaging, Zurich Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190/52, CH-8057, Zurich, Switzerland.
Venus Kallupurackal *Department of Forensic Genetics, Zurich Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190/52, 8057, Zurich, Switzerland.
Adelgunde KratzerDepartment of Forensic Genetics, Zurich Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190/52, 8057, Zurich, Switzerland.
Pamela VoegeliDepartment of Forensic Genetics, Zurich Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190/52, 8057, Zurich, Switzerland.
Michael J ThaliDepartment of Forensic Medicine and Imaging, Zurich Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190/52, CH-8057, Zurich, Switzerland.
Stephan A BolligerDepartment of Forensic Medicine and Imaging, Zurich Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190/52, CH-8057, Zurich, Switzerland. stephan.bolliger@irm.uzh.ch.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As it is unclear if and how long DNA evidence can persist on submerged skin, we examined the potential for recovery of touch DNA and blood stain DNA from skin samples immersed in different aquatic environments and temperatures for forensic purposes in this proof-of-concept study. We used pig skin, either smeared with human blood or held firmly for 30 s by two test-persons, before immersing it in either cold, room-temperature or warm water as well as in a stream and a pond for up to seven days prior to DNA testing. The samples were then typed at 16 STR loci. Cold water samples yielded the most promising results, as shown by the recovery of the full set of 16 reproducible STR loci from the touch DNA sample of one test-person after 7 days. For blood stains, we were able to recover all 16 reproducible STRs after 2 days. Room-temperature water and warm water yielded varying results for both blood stain DNA and touch DNA. For pond and stream samples, DNA recovery was possible only within two days. While the pond and stream samples were at relatively cold temperatures, DNA recovery may have been affected by the presence of water insects and snails in the pond and mud in the stream. Our findings show the potential of using immersed samples, particularly those immersed in cold water, as we could detect a complete DNA profile from blood stains and from touch DNA after several days. Our study opens the way for future in-depth studies, examining larger datasets and a wider range of conditions.

Indexed as

Blood StainsImmersionTouchAnimalsDNADNA FingerprintingForensic GeneticsMicrosatellite RepeatsSkinSwineTemperatureDNABlood stain DNAForensic, skin exposed to water, persistence of DNA in waterImmersed bodyPersistence, contact traceTouch DNA

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.