| Title |
Comparison of different methods of DNA recovery and PCR amplification in STR profiling of casings—a retrospective study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Legal Medicine, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00414-018-1812-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Verica Radojicic, Milica Keckarevic Markovic, Feđa Puac, Miljana Kecmanovic, Dusan Keckarevic |
| Abstract |
Casings represent common evidence in a forensic laboratory, due to high frequency of firearms usage during perpetration of criminal offenses. Possible DNA evidence from casings is compromised by degradation, inhibition, and initial low-quantity deposition of biological material. For that reason, in the last 15 years, scientists have been trying to optimize procedures for recovery and amplification of DNA possibly present on its surface. In this study, we share our 12-year experience done on a total of 698 casework casings, comparing two DNA recovery methods commonly used-soaking and swabbing, as well as efficacy of two commercially available DNA amplification kits (AmpFLSTR® Identifiler® and AmpFLSTR® Identifiler® Plus kits). Of all analyzed casings, 30 were excluded as 28 (4%) matched the victims' DNA profiles and 2 (0.3%) samples were proved to be contaminated by technicians. Overall success in obtaining interpretable DNA profiles was 15.6% (104/668) (13.8% (55/399) for AmpFLSTR® Identifiler® Plus combined with soaking, 22% (33/150) for AmpFLSTR® Identifiler® Plus combined with swabbing, and 13.4% (16/119) using AmpFLSTR® Identifiler® kit and swabbing recovery method). Our data suggest the importance of both DNA recovery methods and amplification kits used, and point out swabbing of casings combined with AmpFLSTR® Identifiler® Plus kit as methods of choice. Nonetheless, our results are based on real casework and are prone to uncontrolled variables. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 50% |
| Canada | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 8% |
| Librarian | 1 | 4% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 23% |
| Unknown | 10 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 12% |
| Chemistry | 3 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 8% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 13 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 20 October 2018.
All research outputs
#7,446,937
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Legal Medicine
#389
of 2,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,415
of 333,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Legal Medicine
#8
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,088 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 333,594 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.