DNA transfer to worn upper garments during different activities and contacts: An inter-laboratory study.

Cellular material derived from contact traces can be transferred via many direct and indirect routes, with the manner of contact and the time of transfer (in relation to the alleged crime-event) having an impact on whether DNA is recovered from the surface and a reportable profile generated. In an effort to acquire information on the transfer and recovery of DNA traces from clothing items worn during scenarios commonly encountered in casework, upper garments were worn during a normal working day before individuals were paired to embrace one another ('contact'), go on an outing together ('close proximity'), or individually asked to spend a day in another person's environment ('physical absence'). Each prescribed activity was repeated by sixteen individuals across four countries, and was the last activity performed before the garment was removed. Samples were collected from several areas of the upper garments and processed from DNA extraction through to profiling within the laboratory of the country in which the individual resided. Activities relating to the garment prior to and during wearing, including the prescribed activity, were recorded by the participant and considered during the interpretation of results. In addition to obtaining reference profiles from the wearer and their activity partner, DNA profiles from the wearers' close associates identified in the questionnaire were obtained to assess the impact of background DNA transferred prior to the prescribed activity. The wearer was typically, but not always, observed as the major contributor to the profiles obtained. DNA from the activity partner was observed on several areas of the garment following the embrace and after temporarily occupying another person's space. Particular areas of the garment were more prone to acquiring the hugging partner or office owner's DNA than others, and whether they were observed as the major or minor component was activity dependent. For each of the pairs, no DNA from the activity partner was acquired by the garments during the outing, even though both participants were in close proximity. This study provides empirical data on the transfer, persistence, prevalence and recovery of DNA from clothing items, and enables a better understanding of the mechanisms which lead to the transfer and detectability of DNA traces in different scenarios.

Assessment of the transfer, persistence, prevalence and recovery of DNA traces from clothing: An inter-laboratory study on worn upper garments.

Among the various items recovered from crime scenes or persons involved in a crime event, clothing items are commonly encountered and submitted for forensic DNA sampling. Depending on the case circumstances and the activity-of-interest, sampling of the garment may concentrate on collecting DNA from the wearer, or from one or more offenders who have allegedly contacted the item and/or wearer. Relative to the targeted DNA, background DNA already residing on the item from previous contacts, or transferred during or after the crime event, may also be collected during sampling and observed in the resultant DNA profile. Given our limited understanding of how, and from where, background DNA is derived on clothing, research on the transfer, persistence, prevalence, and recovery (TPPR) of DNA traces from upper garments was conducted by four laboratories. Samples were collected from several areas of two garments, each worn on separate working or non-working days and individually owned by four individuals from each of the four laboratories, and processed from DNA extraction through to profiling. Questionnaires documented activities relating to the garment prior to and during wearing, and reference profiles were obtained from the wearer and their close associates identified in the questionnaire. Among the 448 profiles generated, variation in the DNA quantity, composition of the profiles, and inclusion/exclusion of the wearer and their close associates was observed among the collaborating laboratories, participants, garments worn on different occasions, and garment areas sampled.

Sharing data on DNA transfer, persistence, prevalence and recovery: Arguments for harmonization and standardization.

Sharing data between forensic scientists on DNA transfer, persistence, prevalence and recovery (TPPR) is crucial to advance the understanding of these issues in the criminal justice community. We present the results of a collaborative exercise on reporting forensic genetics findings given activity level propositions. This exercise outlined differences in the methodology that was applied by the participating laboratories, as well as limitations to the use of published data on DNA TPPR. We demonstrate how publication of experimental results in scientific journals can be further improved to allow for an adequate use of these data. Steps that can be taken to share and use these data for research and casework purposes are outlined, and the prospects for future sharing of data through publicly accessible databases are discussed. This paper also explores potential avenues to proceed with implementation and is intended to fuel the discussion on sharing data pertaining to DNA TPPR issues. It is further suggested that international standardization and harmonization on these topics will benefit the forensic DNA community as it has been achieved in the past with the harmonization of STR typing systems.

Wearer and non-wearer DNA on the collars and cuffs of upper garments of worn clothing.

During an investigation, the question of interest might be whether or not a person has worn a given garment. Wearer DNA studies have contributed to our knowledge and understanding of DNA transfer and persistence on items of worn clothing. However, there is currently no extensive dataset on DNA profiling outcomes from a variety of upper garments. Therefore we investigated the DNA profiling outcomes from the collars and/or cuffs of forty-four upper garments of worn clothing and determined the quantity of wearer and non-wearer DNA recovered. Interpretable DNA profiles were more likely to be obtained from collars than cuffs (84% versus 71%). The wearer was detected in all interpretable profiles and a major profile corresponding to the wearer was the most common outcome from both collar and cuff samples (48% and 50%, respectively). There was large variation in the amount of wearer DNA recovered and the average recovered was approximately 20 ng. Usually more wearer DNA was found on collars than cuffs of the same garment and, on average, more non-wearer DNA was found on cuffs than collars. No DNA was recovered from the cuffs of two garments despite these garments being worn for three and four hours, respectively. On one occasion a non-wearer contributed more DNA to a cuff sample than the wearer. We found no correlation between wearing time and the amount of wearer DNA recovered which indicates that other factors (e.g. shedder status and/or the manner of contact between the garment and skin) have a greater influence, than wearing time, on the amount of DNA transferred. However, there was a positive correlation between wearing time and the likelihood of obtaining interpretable profiles. This work has generated data to support the evaluation of DNA evidence from clothing and we provide a case example to demonstrate this.

An inter-laboratory comparison study on transfer, persistence and recovery of DNA from cable ties.

To address questions on the activity that led to the deposition of biological traces in a particular case, general information on the probabilities of transfer, persistence and recovery of cellular material in relevant scenarios is necessary. These figures may be derived from experimental data described in forensic literature when conditions relevant to the case were included. The experimental methodology regarding sampling, DNA extraction, DNA typing and profile interpretation that were used to generate these published data may differ from those applied in the case and thus the applicability of the literature data may be questioned. To assess the level of variability that different laboratories obtain when similar exhibits are analysed, we performed an inter-laboratory study between four partner laboratories. Five sets of 20 cable ties bound by different volunteers were distributed to the participating laboratories and sampled and processed according to the in-house protocols. Differences were found for the amount of retrieved DNA, as well as for the reportability and composition of the DNA profiles. These differences also resulted in different probabilities of transfer, persistence and recovery for each laboratory. Nevertheless, when applied to a case example, these differences resulted in similar assignments of weight of evidence given activity-level propositions.