Male DNA under female fingernails after scratching: transfer and persistence evaluation by RT-PCR analysis and Y-STR typing

  • Alessandra Iuvaro
  • Carla Bini
  • Silvia Dilloo
  • Stefania Sarno
  • Susi Pelotti
Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The collection of biological debris beneath fingernails can be useful in forensic casework when a struggle between the victim and the offender is suspected. In the present study, we set up a controlled scratching experiment in which female volunteers scratched the male volunteers’ forearms, simulating a defensive action during an assault. A total of 160 fingernail samples were collected: 80 “control samples” before the scratching, 40 samples immediately after the scratching (t = 0 h), and 40 samples 5 h after the scratching (t = 5 h). The aim was to evaluate, using a real-time PCR approach and Y-STR profiling, the transfer and the persistence of male DNA under female fingernails after scratching. A significant reduction in DNA yield was observed between fingernail samples collected immediately and those collected 5 h after scratching, with a corresponding decrease in Y-STR profile quality. Overall, 38/40 (95%) of the fingernail samples collected immediately (t = 0 h) and 24/40 (60%) of those collected 5 h later (t = 5 h) were suitable for comparison and the scratched male volunteers could not be excluded as donors of the foreign DNA from 37 (92.5%) of the t = 0 h and from 10 (25%) of the t = 5 h profiles. The analysis of male DNA under female fingernails showed that Y-chromosome STR typing may provide extremely valuable genetic information of the male contributor(s), although 5 h after scratching the profile of the scratched male was lost in three-quarters of samples.

Keywords

Scratching experiment Fingernail debris Y-STR typing RT-PCR Male/female mixtures 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all volunteers who participated to the scratching study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Statement of human rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Statement on the welfare of animals

This article does not contain any ties with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study with the ethical approval of the Bioethical Committee of the University of Bologna, Italy.

Supplementary material

414_2018_1839_Fig2_ESM.gif (0 kb)
Supplementary Fig. 1

(GIF 407 bytes)

414_2018_1839_MOESM1_ESM.tif (45 kb)
High Resolution Image (TIFF 44 kb)
414_2018_1839_Fig3_ESM.gif (0 kb)
Supplementary Fig. 2

(GIF 374 bytes)

414_2018_1839_MOESM2_ESM.tif (44 kb)
High Resolution Image (TIFF 43 kb)
414_2018_1839_MOESM3_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary Table 1 (DOCX 15 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Wiegand P, Bajanowski T, Brinkman B (1993) DNA typing of debris from fingernails. Int J Legal Med 106(2):81–83.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01225045 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lederer T, Betz P, Seidl S (2001) DNA analysis of fingernail debris using different multiplex systems: a case report. Int J Legal Med 114(4–5):263–266.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s004140000187 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fernandez-Rodriguez A, Iturralde MJ, Fernandez de Simon L et al (2003) Genetic analysis of fingernail debris: application to forensic casework. Int Congr Ser 1239:921–924.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0531-5131(02)00316-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Piccinini A, Betti F, Capra M et al (2003) A 5-year study on DNA recovered from fingernail clippings in homicide cases in Milan. Int Congr Ser 1239:929–932.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0531-5131(02)00501-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cook O, Dixon LA (2007) The prevalence of mixed DNA profiles in fingernail samples taken from individuals in the general population. Forensic Sci Int Genet 1(1):62–68.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2006.10.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dowlman EA, Martin NC, Foy MJ, Lochner T, Neocleous T (2010) The prevalence of mixed DNA profiles on fingernail swabs. Sci Justice 50(2):64–71.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2009.03.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Matte M, Williams L, Frappier R, Newman J (2012) Prevalence and persistence of foreign DNA beneath fingernails. Forensic Sci Int Genet 6(2):236–243.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2011.05.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Malsom S, Flanagan N, McAlister C, Dixon L (2009) The prevalence of mixed DNA profiles in fingernail samples taken from couples who co-habit using autosomal and Y-STRs. Forensic Sci Int Genet 3(2):57–62.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2008.09.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nurit B, Anat G, Michal S, Lilach F, Maya F (2011) Evaluating the prevalence of DNA mixtures found in fingernail samples from victims and suspects in homicide cases. Forensic Sci Int Genet 5(5):532–537.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2010.12.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kettner M, Cappel-Hoffmann S, Makuch D, Schmidt P, Ramsthaler F (2015) IPV—bridging the juridical gap between scratches and DNA detection under fingernails of cohabitating partners. Forensic Sci Int Genet 14:110–115.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.09.017 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harbison SA, Petricevic SF, Vintiner SK (2003) The persistence of DNA under fingernails following submersion in water. Int Congr Ser 1239:809–813.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0531-5131(02)00586-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Song F, Liu Y, He Q, Hou W, Wei F, Liu L (2014) DNA analysis of fingernail clippings: an unusual case report. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 35(2):96–99.  https://doi.org/10.1097/PAF.0000000000000090 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Flanagan N, McAlister C (2011) The transfer and persistence of DNA under the fingernails following digital penetration of the vagina. Forensic Sci Int Genet 5(5):479–483.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2010.10.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hebda LM, Doran AE, Foran DR (2014) Collecting and analyzing DNA evidence from fingernails: a comparative study. J Forensic Sci 59(5):1343–1350.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12465. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gilder JR, Doom TE, Inman K, Krane DE (2007) Run-specific limits of detection and quantitation for STR-based DNA testing. J Forensic Sci 52(1):97–101.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00318.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roewer L, Krawczak M, Willuweit S, Nagy M, Alves C, Amorim A, Anslinger K, Augustin C, Betz A, Bosch E, Cagliá A, Carracedo A, Corach D, Dekairelle AF, Dobosz T, Dupuy BM, Füredi S, Gehrig C, Gusmaõ L, Henke J, Henke L, Hidding M, Hohoff C, Hoste B, Jobling MA, Kärgel HJ, de Knijff P, Lessig R, Liebeherr E, Lorente M, Martı́nez-Jarreta B, Nievas P, Nowak M, Parson W, Pascali VL, Penacino G, Ploski R, Rolf B, Sala A, Schmitt C, Schmidt U, Schneider PM, Szibor R, Teifel-Greding J, Kayser M (2001) Online reference database of European Y-chromosomal short tandem repeat (STR) haplotypes. Forensic Sci Int 118(2–3):106–113.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0379-0738(00)00478-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Addinsoft (2017) XLSTAT: data analysis and statistical solution for Microsoft Excel. In: Addinsoft. France, Paris www.xlstat.com Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna www.R-project.org Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roewer L (2009) Y chromosome STR typing in crime casework. Forensic Sci Med Pathol 5(2):77–84.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-009-9089-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gill P, Whitaker JP, Flaxman C, Brown N, Buckleton J (2000) An investigation of the rigor of interpretation rules for STRs derived from less than 100 pg of DNA. Forensic Sci Int 112(1):17–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0379-0738(00)00158-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Berger B, Niederstatter H, Kochl S et al (2003) Male/female DNA mixtures: a challenge for Y-STR analysis. Int Congr Ser 1239:295–299.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0531-5131(02)00593-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Warshauer DH, Marshall P, Kelley S, King J, Budowle B (2012) An evaluation of the transfer of saliva-derived DNA. Int J Legal Med 126(6):851–861.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-012-0743-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gill P (2014) Misleading DNA evidence: reasons for miscarriages of justice. Elsevier, London. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2013-0-01382-5, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/book/9780124172142Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC)University of Bologna (Unibo), Unit of Legal MedicineBolognaItaly
  2. 2.Laboratory of Molecular Anthropology, Department of Biological, Geological and Environmental Sciences (BiGeA)University of Bologna (Unibo)BolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations