Fluorescent dye-based detection of trace DNA on forensic tapelifts from worn shirts

A comparison of six adhesive tapes as tape lifts for efficient trace DNA recovery without the transfer of PCR inhibitors

Tape-lifting is a non-destructive method employed in the laboratory to recover and collect trace DNA evidence from crime scene exhibits with porous surfaces. The success of tape-lifting is a balance between capturing the biological material and compatibility with downstream DNA extraction processes to ensure efficient release of the tape-lifted material during DNA extraction. In this study, six commercially available low-, regular- and high-tack adhesive tapes were evaluated. The low-tack S183 tape and the highly adhesive S-Hold tape were compared for DNA recovery efficiency from different materials commonly encountered in casework. All tape-lifts were processed using PrepFiler Express™ BTA and AutoMate Express™ Forensic DNA extraction systems, DNA samples quantitated by Quantifiler TRIO, amplified using Powerplex® 21 and VeriFiler™ PLUS (VFP), and analysed on a 3500xl genetic analyser to evaluate the quality of the resultant STR profiles obtained. The more adhesive S-Hold tape recovered comparable or more DNA than the low-tack S183 tape from the majority of materials tested. However, STR profiles obtained from S183 tape-lifts were of markedly higher quality compared to S-Hold tape-lifts. This was most evident for towel, denim and printed chiffon, where S-Hold samples exhibited severe PCR inhibition, with VFP internal quality markers confirming the presence of inhibitors. The findings suggest that strong adhesion is not necessarily beneficial for tape-lifting, as the low tack S183 tape was able to efficiently recover cellular material from the surface of porous substrates commonly encountered in casework, while avoiding the co-transfer of PCR-inhibitory substances from the sampled material.

Comparison of DNA recovery methods and locations from regularly-worn hooded jumpers before and after use by a second wearer

Items of worn clothing are routinely examined for DNA in forensic casework, commonly with the expectation that at least some of the DNA will come from a wearer of the item, so-called 'wearer DNA'. This study investigated DNA recovered from hooded jumpers that were regularly worn and laundered for four weeks and then subsequently worn by a different individual for four hours. This study also systematically investigated whether using different recovery methods or sampling locations on the jumpers might distinguish between DNA deposited by the regular and most recent wearers of clothing. Four volunteers each wore a new hooded jumper regularly (6 h/day, 2 days/week, washed at weekends) during two 4-week periods. At the end of each month, DNA was first recovered by cutting out and mini-taping the inside left cuff, half-collar, pocket and underarm fabric. The jumpers were then worn by a different individual for four hours, and DNA was again recovered by cutting out and mini-taping, but this time from the inside right cuff, half-collar, pocket and underarm fabric. All DNA samples (n = 128) were quantified and profiled. DNA quantities ranged from 0 to ∼40 ng with an outlier of ∼150 ng, and no significant differences were observed among recovery methods and sampling locations, nor whether one or two wearers had worn the jumpers. However, one volunteer consistently deposited significantly more DNA to their jumpers than two other volunteers, confirming the impact of 'shedder status' on DNA deposition during wearing of clothing. When jumpers were regularly worn by one wearer, the majority (72.7-83.3 %) of the samples for all wearers across both months comprised a major profile of the wearer with a minor profile of non-wearer alleles. When jumpers were then worn by a second wearer, the composition of the profiles obtained were generally reproducible across the recovery methods used, the sampling locations and the two replicates of the experiment for each pairing of wearers. However, profile compositions differed between wearer pairings. Overall, ∼60 % of profiles obtained gave a major profile of the regular wearer, whereas ∼30 % gave a major profile of the second wearer. The remaining profiles comprised other much less frequent observations of single-source profiles of each wearer and equal proportions of DNA from both wearers. Non-wearer DNA was also observed in the majority of samples, both before and after jumpers were worn by a second wearer. For one volunteer's jumpers, a recurring non-wearer DNA profile was observed that could be attributed to their romantic partner, and this DNA persisted on the jumpers even after being worn by the second wearer. This study provides insight on the impact of shedder status, multiple wearers, different recovery methods and sampling locations on the quantities of DNA and compositions of DNA profiles recovered from authentically regularly-worn hooded jumpers. The findings also provide a preliminary dataset that can be used to infer activity level probabilities in casework.

"Technical Note:" Optimisation of Diamond™ Nucleic Acid Dye preparation, application, and visualisation, for latent DNA detection

A targeted sampling approach of latent DNA, deposited when a person makes contact with a surface, can prove challenging during crime scene or evidence processing, with the sampling of latent DNA often relying on the expert judgement from crime scene officers and forensic examiners. As such, the ability to use the quick and robust screening tool Diamond™ Nucleic Acid Dye (DD) was explored, with a focus on the visualisation of latent DNA on non-porous substrates, namely polypropylene, acrylic, aluminium, PVC composite material, glass, and crystalline silicon. The application of DD was performed according to methods reported in literature, where 10 µL of the dye solution (20-fold dilution of DD in 75% EtOH) was applied onto a variety of non-porous substrates via a micropipette and then subsequently visualised using a portable fluorescence microscope. It was discovered that there was scope for improvement in the reported methods due to the observation of crystal formations on all test substrates upon drying of the DD, resulting in the impaired visualisation of latent DNA and fingerprint detail. Thus, changes to the EtOH water ratio of the dye solution, and changes to the mode of dye application from a micropipette to a spray application, were explored to improve the drying time of the dye and mitigate the formation of crystals. While changes to the EtOH water ratio did not improve the overall drying time, the mode of dye application enhanced visualisation, with a spray application eliminating the formation of crystals no matter the EtOH water ratio. Visualisation with a portable Dino-Lite and Zeiss Widefield fluorescence microscope were also explored, with the Zeiss Widefield fluorescence microscope proving to be useful in whole print imaging and a more efficient imaging tool in a laboratory setting.

Genotoxicity Assessment of Metal-Based Nanocomposites Applied in Drug Delivery

Nanocomposites as drug delivery systems (e.g., metal nanoparticles) are being exploited for several applications in the biomedical field, from therapeutics to diagnostics. Green nanocomposites stand for nanoparticles of biocompatible, biodegradable and non-toxic profiles. When using metal nanoparticles for drug delivery, the question of how hazardous these "virus-sized particles" can be is posed, due to their nanometer size range with enhanced reactivity compared to their respective bulk counterparts. These structures exhibit a high risk of being internalized by cells and interacting with the genetic material, with the possibility of inducing DNA damage. The Comet Assay, or Single-Cell Gel Electrophoresis (SCGE), stands out for its capacity to detect DNA strand breaks in eukaryotic cells. It has huge potential in the genotoxicity assessment of nanoparticles and respective cells' interactions. In this review, the Comet assay is described, discussing several examples of its application in the genotoxicity evaluation of nanoparticles commonly administered in a set of routes (oral, skin, inhaled, ocular and parenteral administration). In the nanoparticles boom era, where guidelines for their evaluation are still very limited, it is urgent to ensure their safety, alongside their quality and efficacy. Comet assay or SCGE can be considered an essential tool and a reliable source to achieve a better nanotoxicology assessment of metal nanoparticles used in drug delivery.