Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology
Published in: Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology 2/2021

01-06-2021 | Original Article

Evaluation of the efficiency of Isohelix™ and Rayon swabs for recovery of DNA from metal surfaces

Authors: Dan O. M. Bonsu, Denice Higgins, Julianne Henry, Jeremy J. Austin

Published in: Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology | Issue 2/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

We investigated the recovery and extraction efficiency of DNA from three metal surfaces (brass, copper, steel) relevant to forensic casework, and plastic (control) using two different swabbing systems; Rayon and Isohelix™ swabs, with sterile water and isopropyl alcohol respectively, as the wetting solutions.

Methods

Twenty nanograms of human genomic DNA were applied directly to Isohelix™ and Rayon swabs; and to the metal and plastic substrates. All substrates were left to dry for 24 h, followed by single wet swabbing and extraction with the DNA IQ™ System. DNA extracts were quantified using real time quantitative PCR assays with SYBR green chemistry.

Results

DNA was extracted from directly seeded Isohelix™ swabs with a high efficiency of 98%, indicating effective DNA-release from the swab into the extraction buffer. In contrast, only 58% of input DNA was recovered from seeded Rayon swabs, indicating higher DNA retention by these swabs. Isohelix™ swabs recovered 32 – 53% of DNA from metal surfaces, whilst the Rayon swabs recovered 11—29%. DNA recovery was lowest from copper and highest from brass. Interestingly, Rayon swabs appeared to collect more DNA from the plastic surface than Isohelix™ swabs, however, due to the lower release of DNA from Rayon swabs they returned less DNA overall following extraction than Isohelix™ swabs.

Conclusion

These results demonstrate that DNA samples deposited on metal surfaces can be more efficiently recovered using Isohelix™ swabs wetted with isopropyl alcohol than Rayon swabs wetted with sterile water, although recovery is affected by the substrate type.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Comte J, Baechler S, Gervaix J, Lock E, Milon M-P, Delémont O, et al. Touch DNA collection – Performance of four different swabs. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2019;43:102113.PubMed
3.
Butler JM. The future of forensic DNA analysis. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2015;370:20140252.
4.
Bonsu DOM, Higgins D, Austin JJ. Forensic touch DNA recovery from metal surfaces – A review. Sci Justice. 2020;60:206–15. PubMed
5.
Pang BCM, Cheung BKK. Double swab technique for collecting touched evidence. Leg Med. 2007;9:181–4.
6.
Manohar Pandre GW. Evaluation of low trace DNA recovery techniques from ridged surfaces. J Forensic Res. 2013;4:4–6.
7.
Bruijns BB, Tiggelaar RM, Gardeniers H. The extraction and recovery efficiency of pure DNA for different types of swabs. J Forensic Sci. 2018;63:1492–9. PubMed
8.
van Oorschot R, Phelan DG, Furlong S, Scarfo GM, Holding NL, Cummins MJ. Are you collecting all the available DNA from touched objects? Int Congr Ser. 2003;1239:803–7.
9.
Brownlow RJ, Dagnall KE, Ames CE. A comparison of DNA collection and retrieval from two swab types (cotton and nylon flocked swab) when processed using three QIAGEN extraction methods. J Forensic Sci. 2012;57:713–7. PubMed
10.
Verdon TJ, Mitchell RJ, van Oorschot RAH. Swabs as DNA collection devices for sampling different biological materials from different substrates. J Forensic Sci. 2014;59:1080–9. PubMed
11.
Benschop CCG, Wiebosch DC, Kloosterman AD, Sijen T. Post-coital vaginal sampling with nylon flocked swabs improves DNA typing. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2010;4:115–21. PubMed
12.
Hansson O, Finnebraaten M, Heitmann IK, Ramse M, Bouzga M. Trace DNA collection-Performance of minitape and three different swabs. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser. 2009;2:189–90.
13.
Mawlood SK, Alrowaithi M, Watson N. Advantage of forensix swabs in retrieving and preserving biological fluids. J Forensic Sci. 2015;60:686–9. PubMed
14.
Garvin AM, Holzinger R, Berner F, Krebs W, Hostettler B, Lardi E, et al. The forensix evidence collection tube and its impact on DNA preservation and recovery. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013.
15.
Wood I, Park S, Tooke J, Smith O, Morgan RM, Meakin GE. Efficiencies of recovery and extraction of trace DNA from non-porous surfaces. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser. 2017;6:e153–5.
16.
Adamowicz MS, Stasulli DM, Sobestanovich EM, Bille TW. Evaluation of methods to improve the extraction and recovery of DNA from cotton swabs for forensic analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9:e116351. PubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Thomasma SM, Foran DR. The influence of swabbing solutions on DNA recovery from touch samples. J Forensic Sci. 2013;58:465–9. PubMed
18.
De Bruin KG, Verheij SM, Veenhoven M, Sijen T. Comparison of stubbing and the double swab method for collecting offender epithelial material from a victim’s skin. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2012;6:219–23. PubMed
19.
Mulligan CM, Kaufman SR, Quarino L. The utility of polyester and cotton as swabbing substrates for the removal of cellular material from surfaces. J Forensic Sci. 2011;56:485–90. PubMed
20.
Hedman J, Jansson L, Akel Y, Wallmark N, Gutierrez Liljestrand R, Forsberg C, et al. The double-swab technique versus single swabs for human DNA recovery from various surfaces. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2020;46:102253. PubMed
21.
Frippiat C, Noel F. Comparison of performance of genetics 4N6 FLOQSwabsTM with or without surfactant to rayon swabs. J Forensic Leg Med. 2016;42:96–9. PubMed
22.
Dadhania A, Nelson M, Caves G, Santiago R, Podini D. Evaluation of Copan 4N6FLOQSwabsTM used for crime scene evidence collection. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser. 2013;4:e336–7.
23.
Daley P, Castriciano S, Chernesky M, Smieja M. Comparison of flocked and rayon swabs for collection of respiratory epithelial cells from uninfected volunteers and symptomatic patients. J Clin Microbiol. 2006;44:2265–7. PubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Rose L, Jensen B, Peterson A, Banerjee SN, Arduino MJ. Swab materials and Bacillus anthracis spore recovery from nonporous surfaces. Emerg Infect Dis. 2004;10:1023–9. PubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Roelofsen E, van Leeuwen M, Meijer-Severs GJ, Wilkinson MHF, Degener JE. Evaluation of the effects of storage in two different swab fabrics and under three different transport conditions on recovery of aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. J Clin Microbiol. 1999;37:3041–3. PubMedPubMedCentral
26.
27.
28.
29.
Windram K, Miller S, Ward D, Silenieks T, Henry J. Comparison of Swab Types for the recover of trace DNA in Forensic Investigations. Biology Report: R73. Evidence Recovery and Biology Analytical Groups. Government of South Australia; 2005.
30.
Ong YHM, Cook R, Silenieks T, Henry J, Hefford C. Evaluation of sampling techniques for trace DNA with robotic considerations. Biology Report: R75. Evidence Recovery and Biology Analytical Groups. Government of South Australia; 2006.
31.
32.
McMichael GL, Gibson CS, O’Callaghan ME, Goldwater PN, Dekker GA, Haan EA, et al. DNA from buccal swabs suitable for high-throughput SNP multiplex analysis. J Biomol Tech. 2009;20:232–5. PubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Archer NS, Liu D, Shaw J, Hannan G, Duesing K, Keast R. A comparison of collection techniques for gene expression analysis of human oral taste tissue. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0152157. PubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Sweet D, Lorente M, Lorente JA, Valenzuela A, Villanueva E. An improved method to recover saliva from human skin: the double swab technique. J Forensic Sci. 1997;42:320–2. PubMed
35.
Daly DJ, Murphy C, McDermott SD. The transfer of touch DNA from hands to glass, fabric and wood. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2012;6:41–6. PubMed
36.
Jillian NG MPS. Yield of male contact DNA evidence in an assault simulation model. J Forensic Res. 2013;04:1–4.
37.
Aloraer D, Hassan NH, Albarzinji B, Goodwin W. Improving recovery and stability of touch DNA. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser. 2017;6:e390–2.
38.
Bille T, Grimes M, Podini D. Copper induced DNA damage on unfired brass cartridge casings. 24th Int Symp Hum Identif. United States; 2014. pp. 24.
39.
Aruoma OI, Halliwell B, Gajewski E, Dizdaroglu M. Copper-ion-dependent damage to the bases in DNA in the presence of hydrogen peroxide. Biochem J. 1991;273:601–4. PubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Verdon TJ, Mitchell RJ, van Oorschot RAH. The influence of substrate on DNA transfer and extraction efficiency. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2013;7:167–75. PubMed
41.
Anastassopoulou J. Metal–DNA interactions. J Mol Struct. 2003;651–653:19–26.
42.
Promega. DNA IQTM system-Small sample casework protocol instructions for use of products DC6700 and DC6701. 2009.
43.
Higgins D, Rohrlach AB, Kaidonis J, Townsend G, Austin JJ. Differential nuclear and mitochondrial DNA preservation in post-mortem teeth with implications for forensic and ancient DNA studies. PLoS One. 2015;10:1–17.
44.
Swango KL, Timken MD, Chong MD, Buoncristiani MR. A quantitative PCR assay for the assessment of DNA degradation in forensic samples. Forensic Sci Int. 2006;158:14–26. PubMed
45.
Niederstätter H, Köchl S, Grubwieser P, Pavlic M, Steinlechner M, Parson W. A modular real-time PCR concept for determining the quantity and quality of human nuclear and mitochondrial DNA. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2007;1:29–34. PubMed
46.
Bustin SA, Benes V, Garson JA, Hellemans J, Huggett J, Kubista M, et al. The MIQE guidelines: Minimum information for publication of quantitative real-time PCR experiments. Clin Chem. 2009;55:611–22. PubMed
47.
Ng LK, Ng A, Cholette F, Davis C. Optimization of recovery of human DNA from envelope flaps using DNA IQTM System for STR genotyping. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2007;1:283–6. PubMed
48.
Bowden A, Fleming R, Harbison S. A method for DNA and RNA co-extraction for use on forensic samples using the Promega DNA IQTM system. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2011;5:64–8. PubMed
49.
Holland MM, Bonds RM, Holland CA, McElhoe JA. Recovery of mtDNA from unfired metallic ammunition components with an assessment of sequence profile quality and DNA damage through MPS analysis. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2019;39:86–96. PubMed
50.
51.
Booth N, Chapman B. DNA recovery from fired hollow point ammunition. Aust J Forensic Sci. 2019;51:S107–10.
52.
53.
Cell Projects Ltd. Isohelix DNA Swabs and Sample Handling. 2019. pp. 1–8.
Metadata
Title
Evaluation of the efficiency of Isohelix™ and Rayon swabs for recovery of DNA from metal surfaces
Authors
Dan O. M. Bonsu
Denice Higgins
Julianne Henry
Jeremy J. Austin
Publication date
01-06-2021
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology / Issue 2/2021
Print ISSN: 1547-769X
Electronic ISSN: 1556-2891
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-020-00329-x

Other articles of this Issue 2/2021

Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology 2/2021 Go to the issue

Lessons from the Museum

Suffocation by massive blood aspiration due to intraoral gun-shot injury –the oldest museum specimen in the Institute of Forensic Medicine in Belgrade

Images in Forensics

Unusual (self-)injuries in a case of hanging

Editorial

The ongoing loss of historical material from institutions

Original Article

Death due to hanging: a retrospective descriptive study of the socioeconomic and demographic profiles of hanging victims in central South Africa

Original Article

Autopsy findings in drivers and passengers from fatal motor vehicle collisions: limited differences in injury patterns and toxicological test results

Review

Microbiomes in forensic botany: a review