| Title |
Compatibility of DNA IQ™, QIAamp® DNA Investigator, and QIAsymphony® DNA Investigator® with various fingerprint treatments
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Legal Medicine, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00414-016-1447-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sze-wah Lin, Stephen C. Y. Ip, Tze-tsun Lam, Tung-fai Tan, Wai-lung Yeung, Wai-ming Tam |
| Abstract |
Latent fingerprint and touch DNA are the two most important contact evidence for individualization in forensic science which provide complementary information that can lead to direct and unequivocal identification of the culprit. In order to retrieve useful information from both fingerprints and DNA, which are usually mingled together, one strategy is to perform fingerprint examination prior to DNA analysis since common DNA sampling technique such as swabbing could disturb or even destroy fingerprint details. Here, we describe the compatibility of three automatic DNA extraction systems, namely, DNA IQ™, QIAamp(®) DNA Investigator, and QIAsymphony(®) DNA Investigator(®), with respective to the effects of various fingerprint detection techniques. Our results demonstrate that Super Glue fingerprint treatment followed by DNA IQ™ extraction shows better effectiveness in DNA profiling. Aluminum powder dusting offers the least interference to the three DNA extraction systems above. Magnetic powder dusting, on the other hand, strongly impedes DNA recovery. Physical Developer is the most intrusive, which yields profiles with poor quality, including lower peak heights, poor peak height ratios, and poor intra-color balance. In terms of the choice of extraction method, DNA IQ™ system is recommended for sampling after fingerprint treatments, but not the two DNA Investigator systems. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 12% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 17 | 52% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 33% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 19 | 58% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 November 2016.
All research outputs
#13,787,301
of 22,889,074 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Legal Medicine
#720
of 2,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,701
of 321,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Legal Medicine
#7
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,889,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,073 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,010 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.