ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2021
Evaluation of the efficiency of Isohelix™ and Rayon swabs for recovery of DNA from metal surfaces.
Article in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 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
- Analysis of Microbiomes from Ultra-Low Biomass Surfaces Using Novel Surface Sampling and Nanopore Sequencing.Journal of biomolecular techniques : JBT · 2023Article
- Recent advances in forensic biology and forensic DNA typing: INTERPOL review 2019-2022.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2023Article
- Article
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe investigated the recovery and extraction efficiency of DNA from three metal surfaces (brass, copper, steel) relevant to forensic casework, and plastic (control) using two different swabbing systems; Rayon and Isohelix™ swabs, with sterile water and isopropyl alcohol respectively, as the wetting solutions.
methodsTwenty nanograms of human genomic DNA were applied directly to Isohelix™ and Rayon swabs; and to the metal and plastic substrates. All substrates were left to dry for 24 h, followed by single wet swabbing and extraction with the DNA IQ™ System. DNA extracts were quantified using real time quantitative PCR assays with SYBR green chemistry.
resultsDNA was extracted from directly seeded Isohelix™ swabs with a high efficiency of 98%, indicating effective DNA-release from the swab into the extraction buffer. In contrast, only 58% of input DNA was recovered from seeded Rayon swabs, indicating higher DNA retention by these swabs. Isohelix™ swabs recovered 32 - 53% of DNA from metal surfaces, whilst the Rayon swabs recovered 11-29%. DNA recovery was lowest from copper and highest from brass. Interestingly, Rayon swabs appeared to collect more DNA from the plastic surface than Isohelix™ swabs, however, due to the lower release of DNA from Rayon swabs they returned less DNA overall following extraction than Isohelix™ swabs.
conclusionThese results demonstrate that DNA samples deposited on metal surfaces can be more efficiently recovered using Isohelix™ swabs wetted with isopropyl alcohol than Rayon swabs wetted with sterile water, although recovery is affected by the substrate type.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33180274What 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.