ArticleForensic sciences research2025
Technical assessment of two swab types for human and microbial DNA extraction from latent fingerprints.
Article in Forensic sciences research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Latent fingerprints are a valuable yet challenging source of both human and microbial DNA, especially when ridge patterns are of poor visual quality with little to no identification potential. The efficiency of DNA collection and extraction depends on the choice of the sampling technique and the specimen conditions. This study compared two swab types for collecting and extracting human and microbial DNA from the fingers and fingerprints of two participants: 4N6FLOQSwabs® Genetics (Copan Italia) and standard cotton swabs (Dealmed Cotton-Tipped Sterile Wood Applicators). Results revealed higher DNA recovery for one participant regardless of swab type, indicating variability likely due to individual differences in natural cell/DNA shedding. Microbial DNA recovery ranged from 100% (from fingers) to 30% (from fingerprints), implying a loss of DNA during deposition, with 4N6FLOQSwabs® generally outperforming cotton swabs. Total DNA recovery from fingerprints was ~57% of that from fingers, comparable between both swab types, though 4N6FLOQSwabs® yields were higher overall. STR profiling
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.