Fingerprint pattern similarity: a family-based study using novel classification

Abstract

Objectives: Establishing that certain traits are inherited can be assessed from the extent of morphological similarity of the offspring and their parents. This study, evaluated the pattern similarity of the fingerprint of offspring to that of their parents using a novel classification.

Methods: Fifty families (comprising of father, mother and a child) without ethnic considerations were recruited and digital fingerprints were obtained. The fingerprints; arch (A), loop (L), and whorl (W) were identified and a novel classification (A, L, W, AL, AW, and LW) for heredity study as described by Aigbogun et al.(2018) was adopted. Chi-square analysis was used to test distribution differences, while a pedigree tree was designed for the offspring’s similarity to the parents.

Results: In this study, loop (L) was consistently predominant both as single (>60%) and combined distribution (>75%), followed by whorl (<25%) and then arch (<22%); although not entirely consistent for the whorl (W) and arch (A). The distribution except the ring finger (¯2=24.891; P=0.036) was not statistically significant (p>0.05). From the pedigree tree, the possibility that the offspring displayed patterns similar to that of the parental combinations was 84% for the thumb, 76% for the index finger, 84% for the middle finger, 88% for the ring finger, and 92% for the little finger.

Conclusion: Morphological evidence from this study suggests that fingerprints are more genetically determined than environmentally influenced; however, the pattern in which they are inherited seemed closer to co-recessivity with complex expressivity.

Keywords

• fingerprint pattern,human,inheritance,family,novel classification

References

1. Reference1 Nature. Disease genetics. Springer Nature. 2018. Available at https://www.nature .com/subjects /disease-genetics. [Accessed on August 8, 2018].
2. Reference2 Weiling F. Historical study: Johann Gregor Mendel 1822-1884. Am J Med Genet. 1991; 40(1): 1-25, doi: 10.1002/ajmg.1320400103, indexed in Pubmed: 1887835
3. Reference3 Griffiths AJF, Miller JH., Suzuki DT, et al., eds. Genetics and the Organism: Introduction. An Introduction to Genetic Analysis (7th edition). New York: W. H. Freeman. 2000. Indexed in PubMed Bookshelf: NBK21766.
4. Reference4 Balgir RS. Dermatoglyphics in cleft lip and cleft palate anomalies. Indian Pediatrics. 1993; 30(3): 341-346, indexed in PubMed: 8365784.
5. Reference5 Platilová H, Pôbisová Z, Zamrazil V, et al. Dermatoglyphics - An attempt to predict diabetes. Vnitr Lek. 1996; 42: 757-760.
6. Reference6 Gupta A, Karjodkar FR. Role of dermatoglyphics as an indicator of precancerous and cancerous lesions of the oral cavity. Contemp Clin Dent. 2013; 4: 448-453, doi: 10.4103/0976-237X.123039, indexed in PubMed: 24403787.
7. Reference7 Mathew L, Hegde AM, Rai K. Dermatoglyphic peculiarities in children with oral clefts. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2005; 23: 179-182, indexed in PubMed: 16327138.
8. Reference8 Bhat G, Mukhdoomi M, Shah B, et al. Dermatoglyphics: in health and disease – a review. Int J Res Med Sci. 2014; 2(1): 31-34, doi: 10.5455/2320-6012.ijrms20140207.

9. Reference9 Kumari D, VijayaBabu D, Kumar D. Dermatoglyphics and its relation to intelligence levels of young students. IOSR-JDMS. 2014; 13(5): 01-03, doi: 10.9790/0853-13520103.
10. Reference10 Lakshmana N, Nayyar AS, Pavani BV, et al. Revival of dermatoglyphics: Syndromes and disorders, a review. Adv Hum Biol. 2017; 7: 2-7, doi: 10.4103/2321-8568.199528.
11. Reference11 Cummins H, Midlo C. Palmar and plantar epidermal ridge configurations (dermatoglyphics) in European Americans. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1926; 9: 471–502, doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330090422.
12. Reference12 Cummins H, Midlo C. Finger Prints, Palms and Soles: An introduction to Dermatoglyphics. New York: Dover Publican Inc. 1943. Internet identifier: in.ernet.dli.2015.143762.
13. Reference13 Stoney DA. Measurement of Fingerprint Individuality. In: Lee, H. C., Gaensslen, R. E. (Eds.). Advances in Fingerprint Technology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 2001; Pp. 327–387.
14. Reference14 Ali AHM, Gaikwad AT. Multimodal biometrics enhancement recognition system based on fusion of fingerprint and palm print: A Review. GJCST (F). 2016; 15(2): 13-26.
15. Reference15 Jain AK. Uniqueness of Fingerprints. Sackler Colloquium on Forensic Science: The Nexus of Science and Law, National Academy of Sciences. 2005
16. Reference16 Bose PK, Kabir MJ. Fingerprint: A Unique and Reliable Method for Identification. J Enam Med Col. 2017; 7(1): 29-34, doi: 10.3329/jemc.v7i1.30748.
17. Reference17 Chakraborty R. The role of heredity and environment on dermatoglyphic traits. Birth Defects Orig Artic Ser. 1991; 27(2): 151-91, indexed in PubMed: 1786350.
18. Reference18 Hutchins LA. Systems of friction ridge classification. In: EH Holder, LO Robinson, JH Laub, editors. The fingerprint sourcebook. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, 2011.
19. Reference19 Wertheim K. Embryology, morphology of friction ridge skin, anatomy and physiology of adult friction ridge skin (Chapter 3). In the Fingerprint Sourcebook, A McRoberts (Ed.). National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC. 2011.
20. Reference20 Joshi S, Garg D, Bajaj P, et al. Efficacy of Fingerprint to Determine Gender and Blood Group. J Dent Oral Care Med. 2015; 2(1): 103, doi: 10.15744/2454-3276.2.103.
21. Reference21 Sengupta M, Karmakar B. Mode of inheritance of finger dermatoglyphic traits among Vaidyas of West Bengal, India. Ann Hum Biol. 2004; 31(5): 526-540, doi: 10.1080/03014460412331287164, indexed in PubMed: 15739382.
22. Reference22 Cheng X, Li H, Gupta S, et al. Dermatoglyphic changes during the population admixture between Kam and Han Chinese. Homo. 2009; 60(2): 143–157, doi: 10.1016/j.jchb.2008.07.002, indexed in PubMed: 19167708.
23. Reference23 Machado JF, Fernandes PR, Roquetti RW, et al. Digital dermatoglyphic heritability differences as evidenced by a female twin study. Twin Res Hum Genet. 2010; 13(5): 482–489, doi: 10.1375/twin.13.5.482, indexed in PubMed: 20874471.
24. Reference24 Aigbogun (Jr.) EO, Ibeachu PC, Didia BC, et al. An alternative to the use of HP G3110 Scanjet for digital dermatoglyphics. Theijst. 2018; Vol 6(10): 51–56.
25. Reference25 Galton F. Finger Prints. London, and New York: McMillan & Co. 1892.
26. Reference26 Aigbogun (Jr.) EO, Ibeachu PC, Didia BC, et al. A novel classification for finger friction ridges (dermatoglyphic patterns). European J Biomed Pharm Sci, 2018; Vol 5(11): 115–120.
27. Reference27 Eboh DE. Fingerprint patterns in relation to gender and blood group among students of Delta State University, Abraka, Nigeria. J Exp Clin Anat. 2013; 12: 82–86, doi: 10.4103/1596-2393.127969.
28. Reference28 Ekanem AU, Abubakar H, Dibal NI. A Study of Fingerprints in Relation to Gender and Blood Group among Residents of Maiduguri, Nigeria. IOSR-JDMS. 2014; 13(8): 18-20, doi:10.9790/0853-13831820.
29. Reference29 Ujaddughe MO, Abue AD, Izunya MA, et al. Assessment of Dermatoglyphic Patterns and Sex Distribution in Esan Ethnic Group of Edo State, Nigeria. IJBAIR. 2015; 4(1): 9–14.
30. Reference30 Shahan G. Heredity in Fingerprints. Identification News. 1970; 20(4): 9–15.
31. Reference31 Hartl DL, Jones. EW. Genetics: Principles and Analysis (4th Ed.). Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Canada. 1998; 31-52, 60, 67-71, 668-675.
32. Reference32 Cooper DN, Krawczak M, Polychronakos C, et al. Where genotype is not predictive of phenotype: towards an understanding of the molecular basis of reduced penetrance in human inherited disease. Hum Genet. 2013 132(10): 1077–1130, doi: 10.1007/s00439-013-1331-2, indexed in PubMed: 23820649.
33. Reference33 Shawky RM. Reduced penetrance in human inherited disease. Egypt J Med Hum Genet. 2014; 15(2), 103–111, doi: 10.1016/j.ejmhg.2014.01.003.
34. Reference34 Králík M, Kováčová V, Hupková A, et al. Shape Variations in Loop Pattern Fingerprints: Radial vs. Ulnar Loops. Austin J Forensic Sci Criminol. 2015; 2(1): 1013.
35. Reference35 Grundy CB, Melissari E, Lindo V, et al. Late-onset homozygous protein C deficiency. Lancet. 1991; 338: 575–576, doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)91144-j, indexed in PubMed: 1678832.
36. Reference36 Rossetti S, Kubly VJ, Consugar MB, et al. Incompletely penetrant PKD1 alleles suggest a role for gene dosage in cyst initiation in polycystic kidney disease. Kidney Int. 2009 75(8): 848–855, doi: 10.1038/ki.2008.686, indexed in PubMed: 19165178.
37. Reference37 Vujic M, Heyer CM, Ars E, et al. Incompletely penetrant PKD1 alleles mimic the renal manifestations of ARPKD. JASN. 2010, 21(7): 1097-1102, doi: 10.1681/ASN.2009101070.
38. Reference38 Schaaf CP, Blazo M, Lewis RA, et al. Early-onset severe neuromuscular phenotype associated with compound heterozygosity for OPA1 mutations. Mol Genet Metab. 2011; 103(4): 383-387, doi: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2011.04.018, indexed in PubMed: 21636302.