Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40305181›Full record

ArticleBiomolecules2025

Exploring Sample Storage Conditions for the Mass Spectrometric Analysis of Extracted Lipids from Latent Fingerprints.

Aleesa E Chua, Eden P Go, Heather Desaire

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomolecules, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Interpol review of fingermark composition and visualization 2022-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Aleesa E ChuaDepartment of Chemistry, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045, USA.ORCID 0009-0003-7067-3032
Eden P GoDepartment of Chemistry, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045, USA.
Heather DesaireDepartment of Chemistry, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2181-0112

Funding

University of Kansas Madison and Lila Self Graduate Fellowship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In large-scale studies, uncontrolled systematic variability introduced during sample preparation, processing, and storage can interfere with the detection of subtle biological signals. This study evaluates storage conditions, including two sample preparation methods and storage durations, to minimize systematic variability in the analysis of extracted lipids from latent fingerprints. In the traditional approach, samples are prepared immediately, stored as lipid extracts, and processed in multiple batches. In an alternative method, samples are stored directly on the deposition foil, and preparation is delayed until all can be processed in a single batch. Storage duration is evaluated to determine if shorter storage with analysis in multiple batches is more effective than longer storage with analysis in a single batch. Our findings demonstrate that storage of latent fingerprint samples on the deposition foil is a viable option, with minimal degradation of key features even after eight months of storage. While some differences in lipid profiles were observed across storage conditions, these differences were minor and would likely have little impact in larger studies where biological variability is greater. These insights offer practical guidance for implementing latent fingerprint sampling in large-scale studies by identifying optimal conditions that preserve sample quality and streamline workflows.

Indexed as

DermatoglyphicsLipidsMass SpectrometrySpecimen HandlingHumansLipidsdata analysislipidsmass spectrometrysample processingstoragevariability

Identifiers

PMID40305181
PMCPMC12024923

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.