ArticleForensic science international. Synergy2020
Touch DNA in forensic science: The use of laboratory-created eccrine fingerprints to quantify DNA loss.
Article in Forensic science international. Synergy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- A swab and wetting agent combination investigation for enhanced touch DNA recovery: A step towards standardisation.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Forensic trace DNA analysis to answer activity-level questions in a realistic-scenario activity study based upon the case of Idaho v Bryan C. Kohberger.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Article
- Article
- Detection of invisible biological traces in relation to the physicochemical properties of substrates surfaces in forensic casework.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Review
- Impact of storage conditions and time on DNA yield from ammunition cartridges.International journal of legal medicine · 2023Article
- Recent advances in forensic biology and forensic DNA typing: INTERPOL review 2019-2022.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2023Article
- A synthetic fingerprint solution and its importance in DNA transfer, persistence and recovery studies.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Touch samples typically contain a limited quantity of DNA, which can be further reduced during collection and analysis. It is not clear, however, at which point(s) the majority of the DNA is lost because there is not a reliable positive control to track the quantity of DNA through the analysis procedures. To take the first step in bridging this gap, we established a set of laboratory-created eccrine, or mock, fingerprints containing known quantities of DNA. Next, we defined a set of process controls to quantify loss at key fail points in the collection/extraction procedures, analyzing a total of 1200 mock fingerprints deposited on four different surfaces. We quantified DNA loss to the surface, the swab and at extraction, completing the evaluation with ANOVA. With better understanding of DNA yields and the mechanisms of loss, targeted process improvements will bring touch DNA samples into even more routine use with standardized, optimized procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.