An Optimized DNA Analysis Workflow for the Sampling, Extraction, and Concentration of DNA obtained from Archived Latent Fingerprints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DNA profiles have been obtained from fingerprints, but there is limited knowledge regarding DNA analysis from archived latent fingerprints-touch DNA "sandwiched" between adhesive and paper. Thus, this study sought to comparatively analyze a variety of collection and analytical methods in an effort to seek an optimized workflow for this specific sample type. Untreated and treated archived latent fingerprints were utilized to compare different biological sampling techniques, swab diluents, DNA extraction systems, DNA concentration practices, and post-amplification purification methods. Archived latent fingerprints disassembled and sampled via direct cutting, followed by DNA extracted using the QIAamp® DNA Investigator Kit, and concentration with Centri-Sep™ columns increased the odds of obtaining an STR profile. Using the recommended DNA workflow, 9 of the 10 samples provided STR profiles, which included 7-100% of the expected STR alleles and two full profiles. Thus, with carefully selected procedures, archived latent fingerprints can be a viable DNA source for criminal investigations including cold/postconviction cases.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".