| Title |
RNA/DNA co-analysis on aged bloodstains from adhesive tapes used for gunshot residue collection from hands
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12024-017-9864-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Melanie Grabmüller, Christian Schyma, Burkhard Madea, Tim Eichhorst, Cornelius Courts |
| Abstract |
In cases of firearm related fatalities a systematic investigation at the scene of death is indispensable to differentiate between self-inflicted and homicidal gunshot injuries. A common method to preserve gunshot residues (GSR) is their collection using adhesive tapes. However, the biological material gathered at the same time by the tapes would be of special interest if backspatter, ejected from the entrance wound against the direction of fire, could be detected. In the present study we examined the success rate of co-analysis of RNA and DNA recovered from biological traces sampled with adhesive tapes. The material originated from eight cases of fatal gunshots, taken from the hands of suspects or victims, examined 5 to 19 years ago for GSR. For all types of adhesive tapes tested, quantity and quality of the co-extracted nucleic acids was insufficient for successful DNA profiling, but was sufficient for the detection of blood-specific micro RNA (miRNA). In summary, sampling trace evidence from the hands of persons involved in fatal gunshots with adhesive tapes has a long-term detrimental effect on biological traces. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Researcher | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 13 | 45% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 10% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 14 | 48% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 27 April 2017.
All research outputs
#14,180,635
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology
#257
of 1,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,349
of 313,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology
#6
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,014 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 313,389 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.