↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Forensic Science International: Genetics, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An inter-laboratory comparison study on transfer, persistence and recovery of DNA from cable ties
Published in
Forensic Science International: Genetics, August 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.fsigen.2017.08.015
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristy Steensma, Ricky Ansell, Lindy Clarisse, Edward Connolly, Ate D. Kloosterman, Louise G. McKenna, Roland A.H. van Oorschot, Bianca Szkuta, Bas Kokshoorn

Abstract

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 17%
Other 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Lecturer 4 6%
Other 14 20%
Unknown 20 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 12%
Chemistry 3 4%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 26 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 01 September 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Forensic Science International: Genetics
#1,201
of 1,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#287,266
of 327,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Forensic Science International: Genetics
#28
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,342 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 327,377 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.