Touch DNA Sampling Methods: Efficacy Evaluation and Systematic Review

28Citations
Citations of this article
124Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Collection and interpretation of “touch DNA” from crime scenes represent crucial steps during criminal investigations, with clear consequences in courtrooms. Although the main aspects of this type of evidence have been extensively studied, some controversial issues remain. For instance, there is no conclusive evidence indicating which sampling method results in the highest rate of biological material recovery. Thus, this study aimed to describe the actual considerations on touch DNA and to compare three different sampling procedures, which were “single-swab”, “double-swab”, and “other methods” (i.e., cutting out, adhesive tape, FTA® paper scraping), based on the experimental results published in the recent literature. The data analysis performed shows the higher efficiency of the single-swab method in DNA recovery in a wide variety of experimental settings. On the contrary, the double-swab technique and other methods do not seem to improve recovery rates. Despite the apparent discrepancy with previous research, these results underline certain limitations inherent to the sampling procedures investigated. The application of this information to forensic investigations and laboratories could improve operative standard procedures and enhance this almost fundamental investigative tool’s probative value.

Cited by Powered by Scopus

This article is free to access.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Tozzo, P., Mazzobel, E., Marcante, B., Delicati, A., & Caenazzo, L. (2022, December 1). Touch DNA Sampling Methods: Efficacy Evaluation and Systematic Review. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms232415541

Readers over time

‘22‘23‘24‘25020406080

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 14

61%

Professor / Associate Prof. 4

17%

Researcher 4

17%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

4%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Bi... 9

53%

Immunology and Microbiology 3

18%

Arts and Humanities 3

18%

Social Sciences 2

12%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
News Mentions: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0