G Model

FSIGEN-702; No. of Pages 6

Forensic Science International: Genetics xxx (2011) xxxxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Forensic Science International: Genetics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fsig

The transfer of touch DNA from hands to glass, fabric and wood
Dyan J. Daly *, Charlotte Murphy, Sean D. McDermott
Forensic Science Laboratory, Garda HQ, Phoenix Park, Dublin 8, Ireland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: The transfer of DNA from hands to objects by holding or touching has been examined in the past. The
Received 22 February 2010 main purpose of this study was to examine the variation in the amount of DNA transferred from hands to
Received in revised form 3 November 2010 glass, fabric and wood. The study involved 300 volunteers (100 for glass, 100 for fabric and 100 for wood)
Accepted 10 December 2010
50% of which were male and 50% female. The volunteers held the material for 60 s. The DNA was
recovered from the objects using a minitape lift, quantied using the Quantiler kit assay, extracted
Keywords: using a Qiagen1 QIAamp DNA mini kit and amplied using the AmpFlSTR1 SGM PlusTM Amplication
Forensic science
Kit at 28 cycles. The results show that using ANOVA there was a signicant difference (F = 8.2, p < 0.05)
DNA
Transfer
between the three object types in the amount of DNA recovered. In terms of DNA transfer and recovery,
Secondary transfer wood gave the best yield, followed by fabric and then glass. The likelihood of success of obtaining a
prole indicative of the holder was approximately 9% for glass samples, 23% for fabric and 36% for wood.
There was no signicant difference between the amount of DNA transferred by male or female
volunteers. In this study good shedder status, as dened by obtaining useful proles of 6 or more alleles,
is estimated at approximately 22% of the population. The phenomenon of secondary transfer was
observed when mixed DNA proles were obtained but the incidence was low at approximately 10% of
the total number of samples. DNA proles corresponding to more than one person were found on objects
which had been touched by only one volunteer. Although secondary transfer is possible the proles
obtained from touched objects are more likely to be as a result of primary transfer rather than a
secondary source.
2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction hypothesis that detectable levels of non-self DNA are normally

DNA proles have been obtained from touched objects for over
a decade [1]. A thorough review of the theory and application of the
transfer of trace quantities of DNA through skin contact was
undertaken by Wickenheiser [2]. The case types which involve
transfer of DNA by touching are varied. They range from cases of
murder where the steering wheel of a vehicle yielded a useful
prole to sexual assault where a complainant forcibly detained in
an apartment lost a contact lens. Subsequent analysis of the
contents of the vacuum cleaner yielded the contact lens which
gave a DNA prole matching the complainant [3]. Other useful
sources of DNA were the outside ends of electrical cord used in a
strangulation and gloves left at the scene of a crime. A study of the
signicance of DNA transfer in manual strangulation was recently
carried out [4]. It was shown that DNA can transfer from the hand
of the suspect to the neck of the victim. In that study 23% of the
neck areas sampled had allele(s) of an unknown source present
with 5% of areas showing 6 or more alleles, supporting the
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +353 1 6662989; fax: +353 1 6662929.
E-mail address: DDaly@fsl.gov.ie (D.J. Daly).
present on an individuals skin.
The mechanism whereby DNA is transferred from the skin is
complicated. Wickenheiser [2] states that skin cells are nucleated.
Other authors state skin epithelial cells differ morphologically
from other epithelial type cells from the vagina and mouth because
they lack nuclei and are keratinised [5]. Wickenheiser [2] does
explain that through the sloughing process skin cells are exposed
to large numbers of DNA bearing cells en route to the skins surface.
This may load the skin epithelial cells that may otherwise be a poor
source, with DNA. Thus the cellular origin of the DNA on the skin
may not be as simple as being attributed to skin cells alone.
Wickenheiser [2] proposes that transmission of DNA may result
from the hands/ngers acting as vectors for other cells and that it is
cells that originate from the mouth, nose, eyes or any other source
of DNA rich cells that are contributing to the prole.
The amount of DNA transferred to a substrate during handling
was found to be independent of handling time, dependent on the
individual handler and dependent on the handled substrate [2].
Porous substrates adhere sloughed epithelial cells more readily
than non-porous substrates. The concept of good shedder and bad
shedder has had some attention. One study [6] states that
individuals differ in their tendency to deposit DNA when in
contact with an object and another study [7] found no evidence of a

1872-4973/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2010.12.016

Please cite this article in press as: D.J. Daly, et al., The transfer of touch DNA from hands to glass, fabric and wood, Forensic Sci. Int. Genet.
(2011), doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2010.12.016
G Model
FSIGEN-702; No. of Pages 6
2 D.J. Daly et al. / Forensic Science International: Genetics xxx (2011) xxxxxx
distinct difference between good and bad shedders but that an
individual can act as both a good and bad shedder depending on
when they are sampled. The success rate in getting a DNA prole
from the surface of a touched object will depend on the individual
who has touched the object, which hand they have used, the
activities of the individual prior to touching the object and the
nature of the object.
Secondary transfer of DNA may be from skin to skin to object or
from skin to object to skin. A systematic analysis of secondary DNA
transfer [8] found that under their experimental conditions
secondary transfer of full proles was not observed but that on
occasion minor peaks in some samples were observed. Secondary
transfer of DNA was observed in some studies [6,7] and also
observed in a study of DNA recovered from bedding [9].
In forensic casework, the shedding nature of the individual will
(normally) not be known nor will the activity of the individual
prior to touching the object in question. We frequently want to get
an answer to the question What are our expectations of getting a
DNA prole if an individual handled a certain item? To help
address this question we conducted a study which used a large
number of volunteers (300) holding various objects. We did not
establish if the volunteers were good or bad shedders and their
activities prior to handling the items were not known. In casework,
a forensic scientist will rarely have information about the shedder
status or the activity of the individual prior to touching an object.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Sample collection
At a competition venue, open to the public, at which our
laboratory had a stand, we asked volunteers to hold an object
rmly (without moving it) in their st for 60 s. No preference for
dominant hand versus non-dominant was made. The competition
was run over 3 days and a different object type was used each day.
Day 1 was a glass vial (8 ml), day 2 was a piece of 100% cotton fabric
(7  7 cm) cut from a roll obtained from a local drapery store and
day 3 was a piece of wood (8.5  1.7  3 cm) cut out from a larger
piece of decorative corner timber obtained from a local hardware
store.
Before use, the glass vials, pieces of cloth and pieces of timber
were sealed in individual autoclave bags and sterilised by
autoclaving at 121 8C for 20 min. After sterilisation and being
allowed to dry the samples were UV irradiated in a UV
Stratalinker1 1800 at 120 J/cm2 for approx. 60 s. This was to
degrade any extraneous DNA that may be present on the items
before they were used in the experiment. The objects remained
sealed in the bags until removed by the volunteers. 100 objects
were used on each of the 3 days and 5 of each objects were used as
controls. Each day 50 male and 50 female volunteers were asked to
remove the item from the bag and hold it rmly in their closed st
for 60 s. Volunteers held the object in one hand only. They then
replaced the object in the bag and sealed the bag. The only
information recorded on the bag was the gender of the volunteer.
The objects were stored at room temperature and sampled within
2 weeks.
2.2. Sample processing
Recovery of DNA from the objects was by the use of minitapes
[10]. Minitapes (WA Products Ltd., UK) consist of an acetate strip
(7  1.5 cm) with a section (2.5 cm  1.5 cm) of double sided
adhesive at one end. The double sided adhesive strip is protected
with paper. The minitapes are supplied in sterile individual plastic
screwcap vials (20 ml Sterilin, UK). To sample, the minitape was
removed from its vial, the protective strip removed and the
Please cite this article in press as: D.J. Daly, et al., The transfer of touch DNA from hands to glass, fabric and wood, Forensic Sci. Int. Genet.
(2011), doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2010.12.016
adhesive surface pressed repeatedly over the surface of the object.
The minitapes were replaced immediately in their individual vial
and stored at room temperature.
As a control, ve glass vials, ve pieces of cloth and ve pieces of
timber were sterilised as described and not held by any volunteer.
Prior to use the ve control samples were examined for the
presence of DNA and following extraction, quantication, and PCR
amplication no DNA prole was obtained. As part of the quality
control system in the laboratory minitapes from each batch are
examined for the presence of DNA before approval for use. No DNA
proles were obtained.
2.3. Extraction of DNA
Minitapes were cut into small pieces and placed in a 1.5 ml
micro-centrifuge tube and extracted using a modied method
for epithelial cells with the Qiagen1 QIAamp DNA mini kit
(Qiagen, Germany). 180 ml of ATL buffer was added, the sample
tube was then vortexed and incubated at 85 8C for 10 min. 20 ml
of Proteinase K was added (supplied with QIAamp kit), vortexed
and incubated at 56 8C for a minimum of 1 h. 200 ml of pre-
warmed AL buffer was added, vortexed and incubated for 10 min
at 56 8C, followed by centrifugation at 14,000 rpm for 10 s.
200 ml of ethanol (Merck, Germany) was added, vortexed and
centrifuged at 14,000 rpm for 10 s. Samples were carefully
added to the columns in the collection tubes (QIAamp kit) and
centrifuged at 8000 rpm for 1 min. The column was removed;
500 ml of AW1 buffer was added and centrifuged at 8000 rpm
for 1 min. The column was removed; 500 ml of AW2 buffer was
added and centrifuged at 14,000 rpm for 3 min. The column was
removed and 65 ml of pre-warmed water was added, incubated
at room temperature for 5 min before centrifugation at
8000 rpm for 1 min. The extract (nal volume 65 ml) was stored
at 4 8C for the quantication analysis. A buccal swab from a
known source was used as a positive extraction control in each
extraction batch.
2.4. Quantication, amplication and proling
The Quantiler kit assay was used for estimation of the
concentration of human DNA present and this was performed
according to the protocol. The DNA Quantication Kit was supplied
by Applied Biosystems (USA) and quantication was carried out on
the ABI PRISM1 7500 REAL Time PCR System (Applied Biosystems).
The limits of detection of this quantication kit are 0.023 ng/ml.
Samples were amplied for genetic proling using the
AmpFlSTR1 SGM PlusTM Amplication Kit (Applied Biosystems)
and a GeneAmp1 PCR System 9700 thermal cycler (Applied
Biosystems) as recommended by the manufacturer (optimal 1 ng
of DNA in 50 ml reaction volume, 28 cycles). Proles were
generated using an ABI PRISM 3130 Genetic Analyser (Applied
Biosystems) using a 10 s injection at 3 Kv. Sample solution was
9 ml (174 ml Hi-Di Formamide (Applied Biosystems) + 6 ml Gen-
escan ROX 500 HD Size Standard) and 1 ml amplied DNA.
Analysis was undertaken using Genescan1 analysis and Gene-
MapperTM ID SoftwareV3.2 (minimum peak height of 50 rfu for
heterozygotes and 200 rfu for homozygotes).
3. Results
3.1. Quantication results
The quantication results of each of the different object types
are contained in Table 1. The range of DNA recovered (from 0 to
169 ng) is shown and the corresponding number of volunteers for
each range. The mean value for the amount of DNA recovered from
G Model
FSIGEN-702; No. of Pages 6

D.J. Daly et al. / Forensic Science International: Genetics xxx (2011) xxxxxx 3

wood was 5.85 ng, for fabric was 1.23 ng and for glass was 0.52 ng.

Wood
Using ANOVA there was a signicant difference (F = 8.2, p < 0.05)

13
28

15
20
10
8

6
between the three object types in the amount of DNA recovered.
For each object type there was no signicant difference (paired t-
test p > 0.05) between the results of quantication from male and
female volunteers.
The range of estimated total DNA amounts obtained from all
three objects was 05.2 ng for glass, increasing to 014.8 ng for
fabric and 0169 ng for wood. The highest quantication was
obtained with a male volunteer who held the wood object and
deposited 169 ng total DNA. A single complete prole was
obtained from this sample.

3.2. Phase 1: glass samples

Fabric
A two phase strategy for processing the samples was adopted

53
23
16
4
1
2
1
whereby forty glass samples were selected for amplication and
analysis as outlined in Table 2. This was based on a selection of
samples representative of the range of DNA concentrations. The
second phase was to use the information gained from these
samples to screen the fabric and wood samples where there was a
reasonable expectation of obtaining a useful prole. In this
laboratory a useful prole is dened where a minimum of 6 alleles
(assumed to be from a single source) is present allowing us to call
it a discriminating DNA prole. However, the discriminating
prole at this level may be limited to addressing the issue of
intelligence and/or exclusions. While mixed partial proles can
yield information relative to the contributor most of the mixed
partial samples in this study were not interpretable. Therefore we
have excluded all mixed partial proles from the useful

Glass
category.

74
18
5
2
1
In Table 2 the resultant proles are divided into the total
number of alleles obtained ranging from no alleles, a fail,
extending in increments of ve to a full DNA prole of all 20
alleles excluding peaks at the Amelogenin locus. Some of the
samples yielded no alleles at any of the 10 loci but they did show
one or two peaks, depending on sex, at the Amelogenin locus.
Others exhibited no peaks at the Amelogenin locus and some at
the other loci. These were categorised depending on the number of
DNA recovered from 300 volunteers holding three different objects, glass, fabric and wood.

alleles present at the other loci. The category of mixed partial

indicates where there was at least one locus which did not have
any alleles present but that at other loci there were indications of a
mixed prole, i.e. more than two alleles present. For those 40 glass
samples amplied three mixed proles were obtained ranging
from one full prole with three additional minor elements present
Total DNA ng

1.95<3.25
3.25<4.55
0.65<1.95

to two mixed partials of 13 and 24 alleles, respectively. One of the

4.55<6.5
6.5<13
13<169

mixed partial proles obtained was from an object held by a male

<0.65

volunteer and it appeared to be a mixture of two male

contributors. Another partial mixture was obtained when a
female volunteer held the object and the prole obtained
appeared to be a mixture of a female and a male contributor.
The third mixed sample, from a female volunteer appeared to be a
mixture of a female with traces of another female. It can be seen
that the majority of samples (31 out of 40) did not yield useful
proles. Typically, it was at DNA concentrations of 0.03 ng/ml and
above where useful DNA proles were obtained. One sample of an
estimated DNA concentration of 0.01 ng/ml did yield a partial
mixture where 13 alleles were present. This would equate to a
total of 0.2 ng of DNA input to the PCR reaction (20 ml volume
input). This is not an unexpected nding given that sampling for
quantication may be inconsistent when dealing with low
concentrations of DNA. A 0.03 ng/ml cut off point was then used
Quant ng/ml

0.01<0.03
0.03<0.05
0.05<0.07
0.07<0.10
0.10<0.20

to limit the number of samples for amplication and analysis. This

0.20<2.6

resulted in 24 samples of fabric and 59 pieces of wood being

<0.01
Table 1

carried through full analysis. The results are presented in Tables 3

and 4.

Please cite this article in press as: D.J. Daly, et al., The transfer of touch DNA from hands to glass, fabric and wood, Forensic Sci. Int. Genet.
(2011), doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2010.12.016
G Model
FSIGEN-702; No. of Pages 6

4 D.J. Daly et al. / Forensic Science International: Genetics xxx (2011) xxxxxx

Table 2
The number of samples from each DNA concentration that were amplied and the resultant DNA prole obtained from volunteers holding the glass object.

Quant ng/ml Total DNA (ng) No. Samples No Prole Partial proles Full prole + 3 minor Partial/Mixed

Fail 15 610 1115 1619

<0.01 <0.65 26 19 7
0.01<0.03 0.65-<1.95 7 2 3 1 1#
0.03<0.05 1.95<3.25 4 1 3
0.05<0.07 3.25<4.55 2 1 1a
0.07<0.10 4.55<6.5 1 1
Total 40 19 10 6 1 1 1 2
#
- 13 alleles present, a - 24 alleles present.

3.3. Phase 2: fabric and wood samples
For those 24 fabric samples amplied (Table 3) 14 samples gave
full proles. Because we did not obtain a reference DNA sample
from each of the volunteers and the only information recorded
about them was their sex, we have made the assumption, in
analysing the results, that the DNA prole obtained is from the
person that held the object. This assumption is substantiated by
the fact that the full proles obtained corresponded to the sex of
the volunteer, e.g. male volunteer gave a full male prole. We also
assume that the presence of a mixture indicates that the person
holding the object is the likely major contributor and that it is via
them that secondary transfer of DNA has occurred.
Six mixed proles were obtained from the fabric samples,
ranging from three samples of a full prole with one additional
minor element to one sample each consisting of two or three
additional minor elements. There was one mixed partial prole
which was from a female volunteer and the prole appeared to be
a major female contributor of 18 out of 20 alleles with one
additional minor element present. The remaining four proles
were partial proles consisting of one sample of 9 elements, two
samples of 17 elements and one with 19 elements. One of the
partial proles consisting of 17 alleles was a male partial prole
and it was obtained from a piece of fabric held by a female
volunteer.
For those 59 wood samples that were amplied (Table 4) seven
samples resulted in a fail, 18 gave partial proles, 12 resulted in full
single proles and 22 resulted in mixed proles. As with the fabric
all of the single full proles corresponded with the sex of the
volunteer. One of the 22 mixed DNA proles was a sample from a
male volunteer who held the wood and it yielded a mixed prole
comprising of two male contributors. A second sample from wood
held by a male volunteer yielded a mixed prole comprising a
minimum of at least three contributors. One sample from a female
volunteer who held the wood object yielded a full male prole with
a minor partial prole. The remaining mixtures were made up of
six samples of full proles with additional DNA elements present at
a trace level and 13 mixed partial proles from two or more
contributors. Most of the mixed partials (9 out of 13) matched the
sex of the volunteer that is; a partial female mixture was obtained
when a female held the object. The remainder showed a mixture of
female and male sources.
Of all the 123 samples proled there were two samples where
the results conicted with the sex of the volunteer. One was
obtained where a fabric sample held by a female volunteer yielded
a male partial prole of 17 out of 20 alleles. The other was obtained
when a wood sample held by female volunteer yielded a mixed
prole comprising of a full male prole and a minor partial prole
from a second source.
4. Discussion
Primary transfer of DNA such as touch DNA has been shown
as a source of obtaining a DNA prole from an offender in cases
when no other body uid has been deposited [912]. The items in
this study, glass, wood and fabric were chosen to represent objects
such as drinking vessels, handles of knives, guns and clothing that
is worn during assault cases where sustained or interrupted
contact such as scufes are involved. As demonstrated in this study
and others [6,13] there is no bias in the amount of DNA recovered
between male and female volunteers. It has been demonstrated
that in cases where a large number of items from crime scenes are
submitted for analysis, time and resources are best spent targeting
those items with a higher likelihood of success of obtaining a
prole. On examination of the useful proles obtained (Tables 24)
it is clear that the samples yielding the largest amount of useful
proles were wood followed by fabric and then glass. The results of
this study would suggest that the sampling order should be, wood
surfaces before clothes and then glass. This is in keeping with
Wickenheiser [2] who suggested a similar strategy. Studies have
demonstrated that DNA will be transferred from the holder to
touched objects yielding partial or useful proles [6,8]. In casework
samples in this laboratory samples are routinely processed
through to proling irrespective of the quantication value. In
this study, however, a quantication cut off was used as a screen
for obtaining a useful DNA prole. Of the 33 glass samples
containing less than 0.03 ng/ml of DNA, 29 samples yielded no
useful prole. Of the seven glass samples of 0.03 ng/ml or greater,
ve yielded interpretable proles, where the contributors can be
discriminated. While it is accepted that useful proles, i.e. 6 or

Table 3
The number of samples from a DNA concentration range of  0.03ng/ml that were amplied and the resultant DNA prole obtained from volunteers holding the fabric object.

Quant ng/ml Total DNA (ng) No. Samples Partial proles Full Proles Mixed proles

15 alleles 610 alleles 1119 alleles FP + 1 minor FP + 2 minor FP + 3 minor Partial/Mixed

0.03<0.05 1.95<3.25 16 1 2 8 2 1 1 1*
0.05<0.07 3.25<4.55 4 1 3
0.07<0.10 4.55<6.5 1 1
0.10<0.20 6.5<13 2 2
0.20 < 2.6 13 < 169 1 1
Total 24 0 1 3 14 3 1 1 1
*
Major prole of 18 alleles, plus 1 minor allele.

Please cite this article in press as: D.J. Daly, et al., The transfer of touch DNA from hands to glass, fabric and wood, Forensic Sci. Int. Genet.
(2011), doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2010.12.016
G Model
FSIGEN-702; No. of Pages 6
D.J. Daly et al. / Forensic Science International: Genetics xxx (2011) xxxxxx
Table 4
The number of samples from a DNA concentration range of 0.03 ng/ml that were amplied and the resultant DNA prole obtained from volunteers holding the wood object.
Quant Total DNA No. of No prole Partial proles
(ng/ml) (ng) samples
Fail 15 610 1119
alleles alleles alleles
0.03<0.05 1.95<3.25 20 5 2 3 5
0.05<0.07 3.25<4.55 10 2 1 2 2
0.07<0.10 4.55<6.5 8 1
0.10<0.20 6.5<13 15 2 4
0.20 < 2.6 13 < 169 6 5
Total 59 7 3 5 10
a
1521 alleles.
b
2327 alleles.
c
Mixture of two or more people.
more alleles, can be obtained for quantication values less than
0.03 ng/ml it has been demonstrated that this is a reasonable cut off
for quantication values as a screen in casework. To examine the
validity of this approach we examined 100 samples from casework
carried out in the laboratory, which had a quantication value of
<0.03 ng/ml. These were samples where obtaining a prole from
an epithelial source was required. 90% of these samples gave no
useful prole. 10% gave a useful prole of which 4% gave a full
prole [data not shown]. Extrapolating from the results of the
samples proled a useful prole indicative of the holder could be
obtained in approximately 9% of glass samples, 23% of fabric
samples and 36% of wood samples. As postulated by Phipps and
Petricevic [7] this information is most useful as forming a basis for
a Bayesian framework to help address the question of the
likelihood for obtaining meaningful proles indicative of the
holder from touched objects. For pre-case assessment [14] if one of
the hypotheses were that an item of glass was handled for 1 min
then we would have a low expectation of obtaining a prole (0.09).
Approximately two-thirds of all samples quantied had
quantication values of less than 1 ng. Comparison with similar
studies [6,7] where items were pre-cleaned of DNA, handled by
volunteers and then proled, cannot be made, as the samples were
not quantied. In a previous study [8] where pre-cleaned objects
were held after volunteers shook hands for varying time periods
and then touched objects recovered an average of 115 ng, with no
samples recovered with less than 1 ng. The contrasting amounts
recovered may be due to the sampling method used, in this case
being minitape lifting which has been shown to be more sensitive
[15] than the swabbing method used in the earlier study [8]. In
addition there were different extraction methods employed and
also inter laboratory differences can have an effect. Another study
[13] classied shedders as light if they deposited <0.05 ng of DNA
which yielded no prole. An intermediate shedder at 0.050.3 ng
yielding 1080% (216 alleles) of a DNA prole and heavy as
>0.3 ng up to 2 ng when greater than 80% (greater than 16 alleles)
if not all of the prole was obtained. Phipps and Petricevic [7]
studied 60 volunteers and found no heavy or good shedders and
postulated that the incidence of such may be a lot less common
than estimated by Rutty et al. [16] at 45%. If obtaining useful DNA
proles (6 or more alleles) corresponds to good shedder status
then from results in this study the estimated good shedder status
is approximately 22% of the population. If full proles were the
criteria for good shedder status then the gure would decrease
to 13%.
Interpretation of resulting proles from touched objects is
increasingly more difcult given the occurrence of secondary
transfer. This study, like others [7,13], has demonstrated the
potential for transfer and like them the incidence is reported to
be low. Goray et al. [17] studied secondary DNA transfer under
varying test conditions. They stated that the nature of contact
Please cite this article in press as: D.J. Daly, et al., The transfer of touch DNA from hands to glass, fabric and wood, Forensic Sci. Int. Genet.
(2011), doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2010.12.016
5
Full proles Mixed proles
FP+1 FP+2 FP+3 FP+5 FP+1 Partial/ Mixed
minor minor minor minor Partial mixed
5a
1 1 1b
2 1 1 3b
1 1 1 1 4a,b 1c
1c
12 2 2 1 1 1 13 2
and the type of the substrate in contact would affect the amount
of DNA transferred. As expected wet samples transferred better
than dry samples. They also state that transfer studies involving
skin may not be easily standardised. In this study approximately
10% of the 300 samples yielded mixed DNA proles, half of them
with full proles with additional minor elements present and
half with mixed partial proles. Of the samples proled, the
incidence of mixed proles varied from 37% for wood to 25% for
fabric and 7.5% for glass. Assuming the volunteers had a random
distribution of DNA on their hands before holding the objects we
would have some expectation that the percentage of mixed
proles would be the same for each object type. But as stated
earlier [17] transfer studies involving skin are difcult to
standardise. The interpretation of mixed proles is challenging
[18], and as a result the only information taken from the partial
proles in this study was the use of the Amelogenin locus to
determine the sex of the contributor. An estimation of the
number of contributors to a mixed prole can be made at this
locus but as stated by Budowle [18] this information is limited
in its value. In general where full single proles and mixed
proles with major/minor proportions are obtained, the primary
source is more likely to be the contributor to the prole with the
minor portion attributable to the secondary source. However, a
male partial prole (17 out of 20 alleles) was obtained from a
piece of fabric held by a female and a mixed partial of a major
male contributor and second minor source was obtained from a
piece of wood held by a female. In the rst sample the female
transferred DNA from another male while transferring none of
her own. This is in keeping with the results obtained by Lowe [6]
when without delay between contact with an individual and
handling of an object, one individuals prole was recovered
from an item they had not touched. It was therefore postulated
by the authors that in the context of casework such a scenario
would require two individuals to be together at a crime scene. In
this study, only one volunteer was in contact with the object and
coupled with the information that the negative controls were
free of extraneous DNA then it is reasonable to assume that any
DNA transferred occurred via the volunteer.
5. Conclusion
The work in this study has demonstrated that the nature of the
object will affect the amount of DNA transferred during contact.
There was no signicant difference between the amount of DNA
transferred by male and female volunteers during contact. The
results also show that proles obtained from touched objects are
more likely to be as a result of primary transfer than a secondary
source. In addition, the results of the study suggest that in routine
casework, that a low level DNA quantication result (less than
0.03 ng/ml of DNA for the conditions used in this study) can be used
G Model
FSIGEN-702; No. of Pages 6
6 D.J. Daly et al. / Forensic Science International: Genetics xxx (2011) xxxxxx
as a cut-off point in deciding whether or not to prole certain
samples.
References
[1] R.A.H. van Oorschot, M.K. Jones, DNA ngerprints from ngerprints, Nature 387
(1997) 767.
[2] R.A. Wickenheiser, Trace DNA: a review, discussion of theory, and application of
the transfer of trace quantities of DNA through skin contact, J. Forensic Sci. 47 (3)
(2002) 442450.
[3] R.A. Wickenheiser, R.M. Jobin, Case of comparison of DNA recovered from a
contact lens using the PCR DNA typing, Can. Soc. Forensic Sci. J. 32 (2 and 3)
(1999) 6773.
[4] E.A.M. Graham, G.N. Rutty, Investigation into normal background DNA on adult
necks: Implications for DNA proling of manual strangulation victims, J. Forensic
Sci. 53 (5) (2008) 10741082.
[5] C.E.V. French, C.G. Jensen, S.K. Vintiner, D.A. Elliot, S.R. McGlashan, A novel
histological technique for distinguishing between epithelial cells in forensic
casework, Forensic Sci. Int. 178 (2008) 16.
[6] A. Lowe, C. Murray, J. Whitaker, G. Tully, P. Gill, The propensity of individuals to
deposit DNA secondary transfer of low level DNA from individuals to inert
surfaces, Forensic Sci. Int. 129 (2002) 2534.
[7] M. Phipps, S. Petricevic, The tendency of individuals to transfer DNA to handled
items, Forensic Sci. Int. 168 (2007) 162168.
[8] C. Ladd, M.S. Adamowicz, M. Bourke, C.A. Scherczinger, H.C. Lee, A systematic
analysis of secondary DNA transfer, J. Forensic Sci. 44 (6) (1999) 12701272.
Please cite this article in press as: D.J. Daly, et al., The transfer of touch DNA from hands to glass, fabric and wood, Forensic Sci. Int. Genet.
(2011), doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2010.12.016
[9] S.F. Petricevic, J. Bright, S.L. Cockerton, DNA proling of trace DNA recovered from
bedding, Forensic Sci. Int. 159 (2006) 2126.
[10] J. Sewell, I. Quinones, C. Ames, B. Multaney, S. Curtis, H. Seeboruth, S. Moore, B.
Daniel, Recovery of DNA and ngerprints from touched documents, Forensic Sci.
Int. Genet. 2 (2008) 281285.
[11] E. Hillier, P. Dixon, P. Stewart, B. Yamashita, D. Lama, Recovery of DNA from shoes,
Can. Soc. Forensic Sci. J. 38 (3) (2005) 143150.
[12] J. Abaz, S. Walsh, J. Curran, D.S. Moss, J. Cullen, J. Bright, G.A. Crowe, S.L. Cockerton,
T.E.B. Power, Comparison of the variables affecting the recovery of DNA from
common drinking containers, Forensic Sci. Int. 126 (2002) 223240.
[13] R.W. Allen, J. Pogemiller, J. Joslin, M. Gulick, J. Pritchard, Identication through
typing of DNA recovered from touch transfer evidence: parameters affecting yield
of recovered human DNA, J. Forensic Int. 58 (1) (2008) 3341.
[14] R. Cook, I.W. Evett, G. Jackson, P.J. Jones, J.A. Lambert, A model for case assessment
and interpretation, Sci. Just. 38 (3) (1998) 151156.
[15] J. Kenna, M. Smyth, L. McKenna, C. Dockery, S. McDermott, The recovery and
persistence of salivary DNA on human skin, J. Forensic Sci. 56 (1) (2011) 170175.
[16] G.N. Rutty, A. Hopwood, V. Tucker, The effectiveness of protective clothing in the
reduction of potential DNA contamination of the scene of crime, Int. J. Legal Med.
117 (3) (2003) 170174.
[17] M. Goray, E. Eken, R. Jmitchell, R.A.H. van Oorschot, Secondary DNA transfer of
biological substances under varying test conditions, Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 4
(2010) 6267.
[18] B. Budowle, A.J. Onorato, T.F. Callaghan, A.D. Manna, A.M. Gross, R.A. Guerrieri, J.
Luttman, D.L. McClure, Mixture interpretation: dening the relevant features for
guidelines for the assessment of mixed DNA proles in forensic casework, J.
Forensic Sci. 54 (4) (2009) 810821.