Evaluation of Different Swab Wetting Chemicals Affecting the Yield of DNA Obtained From Biological Evidence on Cartridge Casings

Öz

Cartridge casings made from transition metals can be examined ballistically and also serve as significant evidence by containing touch DNA. However, the success rate of profiles obtained from this type of evidence is generally low. To enhance the success of DNA profiling from suspects' biological evidence, using swabs moistened with chemicals can be beneficial. Typically, swabs are moistened with water, whose hypotonic nature disrupts cell integrity, causing the release of DNA. However, water is not the only agent used for moistening swabs; various buffer solutions are also utilized. The ability of swabs to transfer touch DNA depends on the type of buffer solution used. Sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), a strong anionic detergent, denatures non-covalently linked secondary and tertiary structures increasing the release of bound DNA. Another buffer solution used for swab moistening is the Te+4 buffer, which contains EDTA and Tris. EDTA chelates metal ions, inactivating enzymes that could potentially damage DNA, while Tris adjusts the pH to an optimal level. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of microfiber and cotton swabs moistened with SDS, Te+4 buffer, and water in recovering genetic material from blood and epithelial cells deposited on brass cartridge casings. The study also evaluates the impact of firing on the quality of DNA profiles by analyzing the RFU difference obtained on cartridge case and cartridges. Although the number of complete profiles obtained from water- and SDS-wetted swabs are equal, the average RFU value of SDS-wetted swabs is approximately twice that of water-wetted swabs. The minimum number of complete profiles belongs to swabs wetted with Te+4 buffer. SDS is particularly advantageous over water when used on casings with epithelial cells. Microfiber swabs are more effective in eliminating degradative factors caused by firing, thus enhancing profiling success. Comparisons of the RFU values indicate that casings yield lower values compared to cartridges, supporting the negative impact of the high heat, pressure, and residues generated during firearm discharge.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ballistics
• Swab wetting chemical
• DNA profiling
• Identification
• Touch DNA

Kaynakça

1. Adamowicz MS, Stasulli DM, Sobestanovich EM, Bille TW. 2014. Evaluation of methods to improve the extraction and recovery of DNA from cotton swabs for forensic analysis. PLoS ONE, 9(12): e116351. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0116351
2. Aditya S, Sharma AK, Bhattacharyya CN, Chaudhuri K. 2011. Generating STR profile from “touch DNA”. J Forensic Leg Med, 18(7): 295-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2011.05.007
3. Ahyayauch H, Bennouna M, Alonso A, Goñi FM. 2010. Detergent effects on membranes at subsolubilizing concentrations: Transmembrane lipid motion, bilayer permeabilization, and vesicle lysis/reassembly are independent phenomena. Langmuir, 26(10): 7307-7313. https://doi.org/10.1021/la904194a
4. Aloraer DBN. 2017. Evaluation of collection protocols for the recovery of biological samples from crime scenes. MsC thesis, University of Central Lancashire, Master of Philosophy In Forensic and Applied Sciences, Preston, pp: 12
5. Aloraer D, Hassan NH, Albarzinji B, Goodwin W. 2017. Improving recovery and stability of touch DNA. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser, 6: e390-e392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2017.09.166
6. Ambers A, Wiley R, Novroski N, Budowle B. 2018. Direct PCR amplification of DNA from human bloodstains, saliva, and touch samples collected with microFLOQ ® swabs. Forensic Sci Int Genet, 32: 80-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2017.10.010
7. Benschop CCG, Wiebosch DC, Kloosterman AD, Sijen T. 2010. Post-coital vaginal sampling with nylon flocked swabs improves DNA typing. Forensic Sci Int Genet, 4(2): 115-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2009.07.003
8. Bille T, Fahrig G, Peiffer G, Weitz S. 2020. An improved process for the collection and DNA analysis of fired cartridge cases. Forensic Sci Int Genet, 46: 102238. 10.1016/j.fsigen.2020.102238

9. Bonsu DOM, Higgins D, Austin JJ. 2020. Forensic touch DNA recovery from metal surfaces – A review. Sci Justice, 60(3): 206-215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2020.01.002
10. Brownlow RJ, Dagnall KE, Ames CE. 2012. A comparison of DNA collection and retrieval from two swab types (Cotton and nylon flocked swab) when processed using three QIAGEN extraction methods. J Forensic Sci, 57(3): 713-717. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.02022.x
11. Burrill J, Daniel B, Frascione N. 2019. A review of trace “Touch DNA” deposits: Variability factors and an exploration of cellular composition. Forensic Sci Int Genet, 39: 8-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.11.019
12. Combs LG, Warren JE, Huynh V, Castaneda J, Golden TD, Roby RK. 2015. The effects of metal ion PCR inhibitors on results obtained with the Quantifiler ® Human DNA Quantification Kit. Forensic Sci Int Genet, 19: 180-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2015.06.013
13. Czado N, Houston R, Hughes S. 2024. Evaluation of metal ions and DNA recovery from the surface of fired and unfired brass ammunition to improve STR profiling. Int J Leg Med, 38(4):1265-1272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-024-03200-8
14. Dadhania A, Nelson M, Caves G, Santiago R, Podini D. 2013. Evaluation of Copan 4N6FLOQSwabsTM used for crime scene evidence collection. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser, 4(1): e336-e337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2013.10.171
15. Elwick K, Gauthier Q, Rink S, Cropper E, Kavlick MF. 2022. Recovery of DNA from fired and unfired cartridge casings: comparison of two DNA collection methods. Forensic Sci Int Genet, 59: 102726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2022.102726
16. Eychner AM, Schott KM, Elkins KM. 2016. Assessing DNA recovery from chewing gum. Med Sci Law, 57(1): 7–11. doi:10.1177/0025802416676413.
17. Farrell RE. 2010. Resilient ribonucleases. In: Farrell RE, editor. RNA methodologies. A Lab. Guid. Isol. Charact., Elsevier, Pennsylvania, USA, 4th ed., pp: 155-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374727-3.00007-3
18. Gilmore RB, Glynn CL. 2019. Recovery of touch DNA: a comparison of four collection methods on various substrates. In: Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, February, Connecticut, USA, 10.13140/RG.2.2.17925.19688
19. Giovanelli A, Garrido GR, Rocha A, Hessab T. 2022. Touch DNA recovery from vehicle surfaces using different swabs. J Forensic Sci, 67(2): 707-711. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14932
20. Goray M, Fowler S, Szkuta B, van Oorschot RAH. 2016. Shedder status—An analysis of self and non-self DNA in multiple handprints deposited by the same individuals over time. Forensic Sci Int Genet, 23: 190-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2016.05.005
21. Grosey N. 2011. Effects of different swabbing solutions on DNA recovery. MSc thesis, University of California, Master of Science ın Forensic Science, 1569776
22. Holland MM, Bonds RM, Holland CA, McElhoe JA. 2019. Recovery of mtDNA from unfired metallic ammunition components with an assessment of sequence profile quality and DNA damage through MPS analysis. Forensic Sci Int Genet, 39: 86-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.12.008
23. Horsman-Hall KM, Orihuela Y, Karczynski SL, Davis AL, Ban JD, Greenspoon SA. 2009. Development of STR profiles from firearms and fired cartridge cases. Forensic Sci Int Genet, 3(4): 242-250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2009.02.007.
24. Jansson L, Forsberg C, Akel Y, Dufva C, Ansell C, Ansell R, Hedman J. 2020. Factors affecting DNA recovery from cartridge cases. Forensic Sci Int Genet, 48:102343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2020.102343
25. Kanokwongnuwut P, Kirkbride P, Linacre A. 2018. Visualising latent DNA on swabs. Forensic Sci Int, 291: 115-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.08.016
26. Kedar U, Phutane P, Shidhaye S, Kadam V. 2010. Advances in polymeric micelles for drug delivery and tumor targeting. Nanomed: Nanotechnol Biol Med, 6(6): 714-729
27. Kuffel A, Gray A, Daeid NN. 2021. Impact of metal ions on PCR inhibition and RT-PCR efficiency. Int J Leg Med, 135(1): 63-72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-020-02363-4
28. Kuffel A, Daeid NN, Gray A. 2024. Impact of swabbing solutions on the recovery of biological material from non-porous surfaces. Forensic Scı Int Synerg, 9: 100551
29. Lacerenza D, Aneli S, Omedei M, Gino S, Pasino S, Berchialla P, Robino C. 2016. A molecular exploration of human DNA/RNA co-extracted from the palmar surface of the hands and fingers. Forensic Sci Int Genet, 22: 44-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2016.01.012
30. Lee HC, Ladd C, Scherczinger CA, Bourke MT. 1998. Forensic applications of DNA typing. Am J Forensic Med Pathol, 19(1): 10-18. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000433-199803000-00002
31. Li R. 2015. Forensic biology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, 2nd ed., pp: 200.
32. MacDonald LA, Wan TCR, Perez YS, Bille T, Ammendale MD, Podini DS. 2015. Recovering touch DNA from cartridge casings using a method of tape lifting. In: Proceedings of the 67th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Washington DC, USA, pp: 401.
33. Martin NC, Pirie AA, Ford LV, Callaghan CL, McTurk K, Lucy D, Scrimger DG. 2006. The use of phosphate buffered saline for the recovery of cells and spermatozoa from swabs. Sci Justice, 46(3): 179-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1355-0306(06)71591-X
34. Milnthorp HV, McKiernan HE, Danielson P. 2015. The evaluation and optimization of DNA recovery and amplification from bullet cartridge cases. In: Proceedings of the 67th Annual Scientific Meeting, November, Washington DC, ABD, pp: 1-47.
35. Nandi K, Sen DJ, Mahanti B. 2021. Ballistics: the modern day forensic weapon. World J Pharm Res, 11: 2534-2548.
36. Prinz M, Carracedo A, Mayr WR, Morling N, Parsons TJ, Sajantila A, Scheithauer R, Schmitter H, Schneider PM. 2007. ISFG: Recommendations regarding the role of forensic genetics for disaster victim identification (DVI). Forensic Sci Int Genet, 1: 3-12.
37. Prasad E, Hitchcock C, Raymond J, Cole A, Barash M, McNevin D, van Oorschot RAH. 2022. Touch DNA recovery from unfired and fired cartridges: comparison of swabbing, tape lifting and soaking. Forensic Sci Int, 330: 111101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2021.111101.
38. Salager JL. 2002. Surfactants types and uses. FIRP booklet, Laboratorio FIRP Escuela de INGENIERIA QUIMICA, UNIVERSIDAD de Los ANDES Mérida 5101 VENEZUELA, pp: 300.
39. Schulte J, Rittiner N, Seiberle I, Kron S, Schulz I. 2023. Collecting touch DNA from glass surfaces using different sampling solutions and volumes: immediate and storage effects on genetic STR analysis. J Forensic Sci, 68(4): 1133-1147. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.15305
40. Semizoğlu İ. 2013. DNA izolasyonu. In: Semizoğlu İ, editor. Adli DNA analizleri. Adalet Yayınevi, Ankara, 1st ed., pp: 125-126.
41. Sessa F, Salerno M, Bertozzi G, Messina G, Ricci P, Ledda C, Rapisarda V, Cantatore S, Turillazzi E, Pomara C. 2019. Touch DNA: impact of handling time on touch deposit and evaluation of different recovery techniques: an experimental study. Sci Rep, 9(1): 9542. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-46051-9
42. Sterling SA. 2017. Range of detection for proteins and DNA from fingerprints on fired and unfired cartridge casings. MSc thesis, City University of New York, Master of Science in Forensic Science, New York, pp: 1-58.
43. SWGDAM. 2021. Interpretation guidelines for autosomal STR typing by forensic DNA testing laboratories. URL: https://www.swgdam.org/_files/ugd/4344b0_3f94c9a6286048c3924c58e2c230e74e.pdf. (accessed date: August 22, 2024).
44. Tasker E, Roman MG, Akosile M, Mayes C, Hughes S, LaRue B. 2020. Efficacy of “touch” DNA recovery and room-temperature storage from assault rifle magazines. Leg Med, 43: 101658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.legalmed.2019.101658
45. Templeton J, Ottens R, Paradiso V, Handt O, Taylor D, Linacre A. 2013. Genetic profiling from challenging samples: direct PCR of touch DNA. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser, 4(1): e224-e225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2013.10.115
46. Thanakiatkrai P, Rerkamnuaychoke B. 2019. Direct STR typing from fired and unfired bullet casings. Forensic Sci Int, 301: 182-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.05.037.
47. Thomasma SM, Foran DR. 2013. The influence of swabbing solutions on DNA recovery from touch samples. J Forensic Sci, 58(2): 465-469. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12036
48. van Oorschot RAH, Phelan DG, Furlong S, Scarfo GM, Holding NL, Cummins MJ. 2003. Are you collecting all the available DNA from touched objects? Int. Congr Ser, 1239: 803-807. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0531-5131(02)00498-3
49. van Oorschot RAH, Szkuta B, Meakin GE, Kokshoorn B, Goray M. 2019. DNA transfer in forensic science: a review. Forensic Sci Int Genet, 38: 140-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.10.014
50. Wang C, Stanciu CE, Ehrhardt CJ, Yadavalli VK. 2017. Nanoscale characterization of forensically relevant epithelial cells and surface associated extracellular DNA. Forensic Sci Int, 277: 252-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.06.019
51. Zoppis S, Muciaccia B, D’Alessio A, Ziparo E, Vecchiotti C, Filippini A. 2014. DNA fingerprinting secondary transfer from different skin areas: morphological and genetic studies. Forensic Sci Int Genet, 11: 137-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.03.005.