How to best assess shedder status: a comparison of popular shedder tests.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, LEGAL
Darya Ali, Roland A H van Oorschot, Adrian Linacre, Mariya Goray
{"title":"How to best assess shedder status: a comparison of popular shedder tests.","authors":"Darya Ali, Roland A H van Oorschot, Adrian Linacre, Mariya Goray","doi":"10.1007/s00414-024-03351-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>\"Shedder status\" describes the inherent variation between individuals to leave touch DNA on a surface through direct contact. Depending on the amount and quality of DNA or cellular deposition, individuals are typically deemed high, intermediate, or low shedders. Although many shedder tests have been described, variability in study design and categorisation criteria has limited the ability of researchers to accurately compare results, as well as accrue the necessary population data. As activity level reporting becomes more common, the need for reliable and standardised testing increases. To assess reproducibility, this study compared shedder status data generated by six participants using three different shedder tests, as modified from the literature. This involved DNA quantification and profiling of a handprint made on a glass plate, DNA quantification and profiling of a grip mark made on a plastic conical tube, and cell scoring of a Diamond™ Dye-stained fingermark. All participants washed and dried their hands fifteen minutes before each deposit. To assess the impact of behaviour on shedder designation, participants either refrained from activity or went about their daily tasks during this wait. The shedder status of participants changed between tests, as DNA-based testing often generated lower shedder statuses than cell scores. Further, when different categorisation methods were applied to a single test, intra-person variability increased as the number of shedder designations increased from two (low/high) to five (low/low-intermediate/intermediate/intermediate-high/high). Moving forward, the utilisation of a single shedder test and standardised categorisation criteria is needed to employ shedder testing in forensic casework.</p>","PeriodicalId":14071,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Legal Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Legal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-024-03351-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

"Shedder status" describes the inherent variation between individuals to leave touch DNA on a surface through direct contact. Depending on the amount and quality of DNA or cellular deposition, individuals are typically deemed high, intermediate, or low shedders. Although many shedder tests have been described, variability in study design and categorisation criteria has limited the ability of researchers to accurately compare results, as well as accrue the necessary population data. As activity level reporting becomes more common, the need for reliable and standardised testing increases. To assess reproducibility, this study compared shedder status data generated by six participants using three different shedder tests, as modified from the literature. This involved DNA quantification and profiling of a handprint made on a glass plate, DNA quantification and profiling of a grip mark made on a plastic conical tube, and cell scoring of a Diamond™ Dye-stained fingermark. All participants washed and dried their hands fifteen minutes before each deposit. To assess the impact of behaviour on shedder designation, participants either refrained from activity or went about their daily tasks during this wait. The shedder status of participants changed between tests, as DNA-based testing often generated lower shedder statuses than cell scores. Further, when different categorisation methods were applied to a single test, intra-person variability increased as the number of shedder designations increased from two (low/high) to five (low/low-intermediate/intermediate/intermediate-high/high). Moving forward, the utilisation of a single shedder test and standardised categorisation criteria is needed to employ shedder testing in forensic casework.

如何最好地评估脱落细胞状态:流行的脱落细胞测试比较。
"脱落者状态 "是指个体之间通过直接接触在物体表面留下接触 DNA 的固有差异。根据 DNA 或细胞沉积的数量和质量,个体通常被视为高、中或低脱落者。虽然已有许多脱落者测试方法,但研究设计和分类标准的差异限制了研究人员准确比较结果和积累必要人群数据的能力。随着活动水平报告越来越普遍,对可靠和标准化测试的需求也在增加。为了评估可重复性,本研究比较了六名参与者使用三种不同的脱落者检测方法(根据文献修改)得出的脱落者状态数据。这包括对玻璃板上的手印进行 DNA 定量和特征分析,对塑料锥形管上的抓痕进行 DNA 定量和特征分析,以及对 Diamond™ 染色指痕进行细胞评分。所有参与者都在每次存款前 15 分钟洗手并擦干双手。为了评估行为对脱落者认定的影响,参与者在等待期间要么停止活动,要么继续做日常工作。参与者的脱落细胞状态在两次检测之间会发生变化,因为基于 DNA 的检测通常会产生比细胞评分更低的脱落细胞状态。此外,在一次测试中采用不同的分类方法时,随着脱落细胞数量从两种(低/高)增加到五种(低/低-中/中/中-高/高),人与人之间的差异也随之增加。展望未来,在法医办案中采用脱落细胞检测时,需要使用单一脱落细胞检测和标准化分类标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
9.50%
发文量
165
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Legal Medicine aims to improve the scientific resources used in the elucidation of crime and related forensic applications at a high level of evidential proof. The journal offers review articles tracing development in specific areas, with up-to-date analysis; original articles discussing significant recent research results; case reports describing interesting and exceptional examples; population data; letters to the editors; and technical notes, which appear in a section originally created for rapid publication of data in the dynamic field of DNA analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信