The Evaluation of Factors Affecting the Amount of DNA Obtained from Fired Cartridge Case
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17986/blm.1728Keywords:
Cartridge Case, DNA Quantification, Microfiber Swap, Cotton Swap, Touch DNAAbstract
Objective: It involves the evaluation of the effects of different biological materials deposited on cartridge cases on the amount of DNA recovered post-firing, considering the influence of time and different types of swabs
Methods: MKE 9x19 mm brass cartridges were contaminated with blood and epithelial cells, fired, and swabbed at different intervals (1 day, 1 week, 2 weeks, 3 weeks, 4 weeks, 2 months, 3 months) to assess DNA quantity. The study compared microfiber and cotton swabs, utilizing the phenol chloroform method for DNA extraction and the Quantifiler Trio kit with the 7500 real-time polymerase chain reaction system for quantification.
Results: One of these is an epithelium- contaminated cartridge, while the others are blood-contaminated cartridges. For cotton swabs, the highest degradation rate was obtained in the 4th week for blood contaminated cases, 2nd weeks for epithelial cell-contaminated cases. For microfiber swabs, the highest degradation rate was obtained in the 3rd month for blood contaminated cases, 1st day for epithelial cell-contaminated cases. In a study using cotton and microfiber swabs to collect samples from different biological materials on cartridge cases, no significant difference was found in DNA quantity between the swab types on day 1 and month 3.
Conclusion: The microfiber swab, considered an alternative to the routinely used cotton swab, did not demonstrate superiority. DNA sufficient for successful profiling was obtained even from cartridges swabbed three months after firing. Additionally, blood-contaminated cartridges had significantly higher DNA levels than those contaminated with epithelial cells.
Downloads
References
Umut vakfı. Available from: https://www.umut.org.tr/turkiye-de-ve-dunyada-bireysel-silahlanma2/#:~:text=Her%20y%C4%B1l%20ortalama%204500%20ki%C5%9Fi,1’inde%20silah%20var%20demek. Erişim Tarihi:29.06.2024. 2012. Türkiye’de ve Dünya’da Bireysel Silahlanma.
Radojicic V, Keckarevic Markovic M, Puac F, Kecmanovic M, Keckarevic D. Comparison of Different Methods of DNA Recovery and PCR Amplification in STR Profiling of Casings—A Retrospective Study. Int J Legal Med. 2018 Nov 13;132(6):1575–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-018-1812-x.
van Oorschot RA, Ballantyne KN, Mitchell RJ. Forensic Trace DNA: A Review. Investig Genet. 2010;1(1):14. https:// doi.org/10.1186/2041-2223-1-14.
Almog J, Cantu A, Champod C, Kent T, Lennard C. Guidelines For The Assessment Of Fingermark Detection Techniques International Fingerprint Research Group (IFRG). J Forensic Identif. 2014;64:174–98.
van Oorschot RAH, Jones MK. DNA Fingerprints from Fingerprints. Nature. 1997 Jun;387(6635):767–767. https://doi.org/10.1038/42838.
McLaren C, Lennard C, Stoilovic M. Methylamine Pretreatment of Dry Latent Fingermarks on Polyethylene for Enhanced Detection by Cyanoacrylate Fuming. Journal of Forensic Identification . 2010;60:199–222.
Montpetit S, O’Donnell P. An Optimized Procedure for Obtaining DNA from Fired and Unfired Ammunition. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2015 Jul;17:70–4. https:// doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2015.03.012.
Thanakiatkrai P, Rerkamnuaychoke B. Direct STR Typing from Fired and Unfired Bullet Casings. Forensic Sci Int. 2019 Aug;301:182–9. https:// 10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.05.037
Semizoğlu İ. DNA izolasyonu. In: Adli DNA analizleri. Ankara: Adalet Yayınevi; 2013. p. 125–6.
Bonnet J, Colotte M, Coudy D, Couallier V, Portier J, Morin B, et al. Chain and Conformation Stability of Solid-State DNA: Implications for Room Temperature Storage. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010 Mar;38(5):1531–46. https:// 10.1093/nar/gkp1060.
Ambers A, Wiley R, Novroski N, Budowle B. Direct PCR Amplification of DNA from Human Bloodstains, Saliva and Touch Samples Collected with microFLOQ ® Swabs. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2018 Jan;32:80–7. https:// 10.1016/j.fsigen.2017.10.010.
Dadhania A, Nelson M, Caves G, Santiago R, Podini D. Evaluation of Copan 4N6FLOQSwabsTM Used for Crime Scene Evidence Collection. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser. 2013;4(1):e336–7. https:// 10.1016/j.fsigen.2022.102716.
Horsman-Hall KM, Orihuela Y, Karczynski SL, Davis AL, Ban JD, Greenspoon SA. Development of STR Profiles from Firearms and Fired Cartridge Cases. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2009 Sep;3(4):242–50. https:// 10.1016/j.fsigen.2009.02.007.
Girelli CMA, Vieira MA, Singh K, Cunha AG, Freitas JCC, Emmerich FG. Recovery of Latent Fingermarks from Brass Cartridge Cases: Evaluation of Developers, Analysis of Surfaces and Internal Ballistic Effects. Forensic Sci Int. 2018 Sep;290:258–78. https:// doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.07.026.
Girelli CMA, Lobo BJM, Cunha AG, Freitas JCC, Emmerich FG. Comparison of Practical Techniques to Develop Latent Fingermarks on Fired and Unfired Cartridge Cases. Forensic Sci Int. 2015 May;250:17–26. https:// doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.02.012.
applied biosystem. QuantifilerTM HP and Trio DNA Quantification Kits . Thermo Fisher Scıentıfıc. 2018.
applied biosystem. AmpFℓSTRTM IdentifilerTM PCR Amplification Kit. Thermo Fisher Scıentıfıc. 2018.
Farmen RK, Jaghø R, Cortez P, Frøyland ES. Assessment of Individual Shedder Status and Implication for Secondary DNA Transfer. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser. 2008 Aug;1(1):415–7. https:// 10.1016/j.fsigss.2007.08.015.
Spear T, Clark J, Giusto M, Khoshkebari N, Murphy M, Rush J. Fingerprints & Cartridge Cases: How Often are Fingerprints Found on Handled Cartridge Cases & Can These Fingerprints Be Successfully Typed for DNA? California Association of Crimialists. Oakland, California: lpdnactg_presentation.pdf (latent-prints.com); 2005.
McElhoe J, Mandracchia T, Bille T, Holland M. Impact of Storage Conditions and Time on DNA Yield from Ammunition Cartridges. Int J Legal Med. 2023 Jul 27;137(4):995–1006. https:// doi: 10.1007/s00414-023-03018-w.
Tasker E, Roman MG, Akosile M, Mayes C, Hughes S, LaRue B. Efficacy of “Touch” DNA Recovery and Room-Temperature Storage from Assault Rifle Magazines. Leg Med. 2020 Mar;43:101658. https:// doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.15305
Winnepenninckx A, Verhoeven E, Vermeulen S, Jeurissen B, Borgers E, Bekaert B. Time Since Contact Influences DNA Profiling Success of Cartridges and Fired Cartridge Casings. Forensic Sci Int. 2022 Nov;340:111474. https:// doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2022.111474.
Alem L, da Rocha Marques BCM, Nogueira TLS, da Silva DA. Genetic Profiling from 9 mm Fired Cartridge Cases Over 30 Days. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser. 2022 Dec;8:294–6. https://doi: :10.23736/S2784-8922.23.01845-9
Bond JW, Hammond C. The Value of DNA Material Recovered from Crime Scenes. J Forensic Sci. 2008 Jul 4;53(4):797–801. https:// 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00746.x.
Anastassopoulou J. Metal–DNA Interactions. J Mol Struct. 2003 Jun;651–653:19–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-2860(02)00625-7.
Bonsu DOM, Higgins D, Austin JJ. Forensic Touch DNA Recovery from Metal Surfaces – A Review. Science & Justice. 2020 May;60(3):206–15. https:// 0.1016/j.scijus.2020.01.002.
Govindaraju M, Shekar H, Sateesha S, Raju P V., Rao KS, Rao KSJ, et al. Copper Interactions with DNA of Chromatin and Its Role in Neurodegenerative Disorders. J paharm anal. 2013;354–9. https:// doi: 10.1016/j.jpha.2013.03.003.
Prasad E, Atwood L, van Oorschot RA, McNevin D, Barash M, Raymond J. Trace DNA Recovery Rates from Firearms and Ammunition as Revealed by Casework Data. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2023;55(1):73–88. https:// 10.1080/00450618.2021.1939783
Czado N, Houston R, Hughes S. Evaluation of Metal Ions and DNA Recovery from the Surface of Fired and Unfired Brass Ammunition to Improve STR Profiling. Int J Legal Med. 2024 Mar 4; https:// 10.1007/s00414-024-03200-8.
Phillips K, McCallum N, Welch L. A Comparison of Methods for Forensic DNA Extraction: Chelex-100® and the QIAGEN DNA Investigator Kit (Manual And Automated). Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2012 Mar;6(2):282–5. https:// 10.1016/j.fsigen.2011.04.018
Bruijns B. What are The Limitations and Challenges of Swab-Based DNA Sampling? Forensic sciences. 2024 Feb 26;4(1):76–95. https://doi.org/10.3390/forensicsci4010006
Benschop CCG, Wiebosch DC, Kloosterman AD, Sijen T. Post-Coital Vaginal Sampling with Nylon Flocked Swabs Improves DNA Typing. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2010 Feb;4(2):115–21. https:// 10.1016/j.fsigen.2009.07.003
Vashist V, Banthia N, Kumar S, Agrawal P. A Systematic Review on Materials, Design, and Manufacturing of Swabs. Annals of 3D Printed Medicine. 2023 Feb;9:100092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stlm.2022.100092
Jansson L, Forsberg C, Akel Y, Dufva C, Ansell C, Ansell R, et al. Factors Affecting DNA Recovery from Cartridge Cases. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2020 Sep;48:102343. https:// 10.1016/j.fsigen.2020.102343
Brownlow RJ, Dagnall KE, Ames CE. A Comparison of DNA Collection and Retrieval from Two Swab Types (Cotton and nylon flocked swab) When Processed Using Three QIAGEN Extraction Methods. J Forensic Sci. 2012 May 28;57(3):713–7. https:// doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.02022.x
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 The Bulletin of Legal Medicine
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The Journal and content of this website is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) License. The Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) allows users to copy, distribute and transmit an article, adapt the article and make commercial use of the article. The CC BY license permits commercial and non-commercial re-use of an open access article, as long as the author is properly attributed.
