MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3217418418 · doi:10.1101/2021.11.25.470033

Secondary DNA transfer on denim using a human blood analogue

2021· preprint· en· W3217418418 on OpenAlexafffund
Rebecca Ridings, Alon Gabriel, Colin Elliott, Aaron B. A. Shafer

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsTrent University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDenimDNAGenotypeMicrosatelliteDNA profilingDNA extractionChemistryMaterials scienceBiologyGeneticsAlleleComposite materialPolymerase chain reactionGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract DNA quantification technology has increased in accuracy and sensitivity, now allowing for detection and profiling of trace DNA. Secondary DNA transfer occurs when DNA is deposited via an intermediary source (e.g. clothing, tools, utensils). Multiple courtrooms have now seen secondary transfer introduced as an explanation for DNA being present at a crime scene, but sparse experimental studies mean expert opinions are often limited. Here, we used bovine blood and indigo denim substrates to quantify the amount of secondary DNA transfer and quality of STRs under three different physical contact scenarios: passive, pressure, and friction. We showed that the DNA transfer was highest under a friction scenario, followed by pressure and passive treatments. The STR profiles showed a similar, albeit less pronounced trend, with correctly scored alleles and genotype completeness being highest under a friction scenario, followed by pressure and passive. DNA on the primary substrate showed a decrease in concentration and genotype completeness both immediately and at 24 hours, suggestive of a loss of DNA during the primary transfer. The majority of secondary transfer samples amplified less than 50% of STR loci regardless of contact type. This study showed that while DNA transfer is common between denim, this is not manifested in full STR profiles. We discuss the possible technical solutions to partial profiles from trace DNA, and more broadly the ubiquity of secondary DNA transfer.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies→French-language works237,207→