The DNA‐Buster: The evaluation of an alternative DNA recovery approach. (May 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Währer, Jonathan; Kehm, Sabrina; Allen, Marie; Brauer, Linnéa; Eidam, Oliver; Seiberle, Ilona; Kron, Sarah; Scheurer, Eva; Schulz, Iris
• Is Part Of: Forensic science international. Volume 64(2023)
• Publication Date: 2023-05
• Subjects: Dry-vacuuming -- Swabbing -- Taping -- Wet-vacuuming -- Performance comparison -- Full DNA profile; Forensic genetics -- Periodicals; Génétique légale -- Périodiques; Forensic genetics; Electronic journals; Periodicals; 614.1
• DOI: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2023.102830
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1872-4973

Abstract

Abstract: Touch DNA recovery techniques can have limitations, as their effectiveness depends on the substrate on which the DNA of a person of interest can be found. In this study, an in-house dry-vacuuming device, the DNA-Buster, was compared to traditional methods for its DNA recovery performance from items typically examined in forensic casework. The aim was to evaluate whether this dry-vacuuming approach can recover DNA efficiently, potentially complementing the well-established recovery strategies. For this, the performances of swabbing, taping, wet- (M-Vac®) and dry-vacuuming (DNA-Buster) were investigated quantitatively and qualitatively for touch DNA deposited on carpet, cotton sweater, stone, tile and wood. For the sweater, both vacuuming methods outperformed the other collection tools quantitatively. While the highest DNA amounts for the carpet were yielded by swabbing and taping, dry-vacuuming was equally good in reaching full DNA profiles, whereas less complete profiles were observed for the M-Vac®. For stone and tile, swabbing was optimal, whereas dry-vacuuming clearly underperformed for these substrates. Taping was the best recovery method for wood. Despite applying single donor DNA after thoroughly cleaning the items, undesired DNA mixtures were detected for all recovery techniques and all substrates. The overall research findings show first that the novel dry-vacuuming method is suited for DNA recovery from textiles. Secondly, they indicate that more attention should be paid to the substrate-collection dependency to ensure best practices in recovering genetic material in a precise, confident and targeted manner from the variety of forensic casework material. Highlights: An alternative dry vacuuming device for collecting of forensic evidence is evaluated. Wet and dry vacuuming yielded the highest DNA amounts for cotton sweater. For the carpet, swabbing, taping and dry vacuuming yielded the most complete STR profiles. For stone and tile, swabbing showed best STR profiles, while vacuuming underperformed. The highest DNA recovery for wood was taping.