Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34498754›Full record

ArticleJournal of forensic sciences2022

DNA recovery after sequential processing of latent fingerprints on copy paper.

Abigail S Bathrick, Sarah Norsworthy, Dane T Plaza, Mallory N McCormick, Donia Slack, Robert S Ramotowski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of forensic sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 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. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
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.

Abigail S BathrickBode Technology, Lorton, VA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8634-7835
Sarah NorsworthyForensic Technology Center of Excellence, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Dane T PlazaBode Technology, Lorton, VA, USA.
Mallory N McCormickForensic Services Division, United States Secret Service, Washington, DC, USA.
Donia SlackForensic Technology Center of Excellence, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Robert S RamotowskiForensic Services Division, United States Secret Service, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4823-4506

Funding

National Institute of Justice 2011-DN-BX-K564National Institute of Justice 2016-MU-BX-K110
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Forensic examiners must determine whether both latent fingerprint development and DNA profiling can be performed on the same area of an evidence item and, if only one is possible, which examination offers the best chance for identification. Latent fingerprints can be enhanced by targeting different components of fingerprint residues with sequential chemical treatments. This study investigated the effects of single-reagent and sequential latent fingerprint development processes on downstream DNA analysis to determine the point at which latent fingerprint development should be stopped to allow for DNA recovery. Latent fingerprints deposited on copy paper by one donor were developed using three sequential processes: 1,8-diazafluoren-9-one (DFO) → ninhydrin → physical developer (PD); 1,2-indanedione-zinc (IND-Zn) → ninhydrin → PD; and IND-Zn → ninhydrin → Oil Red O (ORO) → PD. Samples were examined after the addition of each chemical treatment. DNA was collected with cotton swabs, extracted, quantified, and amplified. DNA yields, peak heights, number of alleles obtained, and percentage of DNA profiles eligible for CODIS upload were examined. DNA profiles were obtained with varying degrees of success, depending on the number and type of treatments used for latent fingerprint development. The treatments that were found to be the least harmful to downstream DNA analysis were IND-Zn and IND-Zn/laser, and the most detrimental treatments were DFO, DFO/laser, and PD. In general, as the number of treatments increase, the opportunities for DNA loss or damage also increase, and it is preferable to use fewer treatments when developing latent fingerprints prior to downstream DNA processing.

Indexed as

DermatoglyphicsDNA FingerprintingDNAIndicators and ReagentsNinhydrinPaperDNAIndicators and ReagentsNinhydrinDNA profilingfingermarksfingerprint developmentforensic analysislatent fingerprintstouch DNA

Identifiers

PMID34498754
PMCPMC9291209

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.