School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Forensic Sci Int. 2021 Jan;318:110563. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110563. Epub 2020 Oct 26.
When sampling an item or surface for DNA, the collection of 'background' DNA (bDNA) from previous use poses an issue as it may impact the detectability of 'target' DNA and the interpretation of the DNA results given alleged activities. This study investigates the prevalence and transferability of bDNA on flooring surfaces within occupied houses under conditions similar to those that are encountered in casework. To assess bDNA presence and transferability, and the impact of how and who contacts the surface, areas used frequently and infrequently were targeted in the kitchen, living room, bedroom and bathroom of five houses, and two samples taken from each area; one directly from the floor and another from a cotton surface after contacting the floor. DNA was detected in 97 % (of 39) of samples collected directly from flooring, with 92 % providing interpretable profiles. DNA was detected in 85 % (of 39) samples collected from cotton swatches after contacting the floors, with 79 % providing interpretable profiles. The overall quantity, number of contributors, and likelihood of observing a major contributor was greater for samples obtained directly from the floor compared to the cotton. In 80 % of samples recovered from cotton, the quantity of DNA recovered was less than 20 % of that which was recovered directly from the floor. Overall, no trend was observed between the level of reported activity by occupants within areas of the same room and the quantity of DNA recovered directly from the flooring, the quantity of DNA transferred to and recovered from the cotton, or the number of contributors in resulting DNA profiles. In contrast, greater quantities of DNA were generally obtained from houses with a greater number of occupants. Profile composition was similar for samples collected from different areas of the same room, irrespective of the level of activity and from where the sample was obtained (i.e. directly from the floor or contacting surface). Occupants were often not detected in DNA profiles collected from rooms they were known to use and could be observed in profiles collected from rooms they reportedly did not use. The findings of this preliminary investigation provide an understanding of the complexities of transfer, persistence, prevalence and recovery of DNA traces in houses occupied by multiple people and highlights the need to consider how and who uses a space, in the investigation of criminal activities where DNA traces are recovered from, or have been in contact with, flooring.
在对物品或表面进行 DNA 采样时,先前使用过程中采集的“背景”DNA(bDNA)会带来问题,因为它可能会影响“目标”DNA 的可检测性,以及对涉嫌活动所产生的 DNA 结果的解释。本研究调查了在类似于实际案件中遇到的条件下,在有人居住的房屋内地板表面上 bDNA 的普遍性和可转移性。为了评估 bDNA 的存在和可转移性,以及接触表面的方式和人员对其的影响,在五所房屋的厨房、客厅、卧室和浴室中,对经常和不经常使用的区域进行了靶向采样,每个区域采集两个样本;一个直接取自地板,另一个取自接触地板后的棉拭子。直接取自地板的 39 个样本中,有 97%(39 个中的 37 个)检测到 DNA,其中 92%提供了可解释的图谱。从接触地板的棉拭子中采集的 39 个样本中,有 85%(39 个中的 34 个)检测到 DNA,其中 79%提供了可解释的图谱。与从棉拭子中获得的样本相比,直接从地板上获得的样本的总体数量、贡献者数量和观察到主要贡献者的可能性更大。在从棉拭子中回收的 80%的样本中,回收的 DNA 量少于直接从地板上回收的 DNA 量的 20%。总体而言,同一房间内不同区域的居住者报告的活动水平与直接从地板上回收的 DNA 量、转移到棉拭子上并回收的 DNA 量或结果 DNA 图谱中的贡献者数量之间没有观察到趋势。相比之下,通常从居住人数较多的房屋中获得更多的 DNA。从同一房间的不同区域采集的样本的谱组成相似,无论活动水平如何,以及从何处采集样本(即直接从地板上或接触表面)。在已知使用过的房间中采集的 DNA 谱中,通常检测不到居住者,但可以在据称未使用过的房间中采集到的谱中观察到他们。本初步调查结果的发现,使人们对多人居住房屋中 DNA 痕迹的转移、持久性、普遍性和恢复的复杂性有了一定的了解,并强调了在调查 DNA 痕迹从地板上或与之有过接触的犯罪活动时,需要考虑如何以及谁使用了一个空间。