ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2020
Persistence and detection of touch DNA and blood stain DNA on pig skin exposed to water.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Touch DNA Sampling Methods: Efficacy Evaluation and Systematic Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Pooled it
- Verification of intimate and non-intimate recovery of DNA within Sexual Assault Referral Centres (SARCs).Forensic science international. Synergy · 2025Article
- Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
32170495What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.