Who touched the document?: A new overall strategy for collection and identification of DNA from the questioned documents as a supportive evidence


ELECTROPHORESIS, vol.43, no.3, pp.425-436, 2022 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 43 Issue: 3
  • Publication Date: 2022
  • Doi Number: 10.1002/elps.202100192
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Aerospace Database, BIOSIS, Biotechnology Research Abstracts, CAB Abstracts, Chemical Abstracts Core, Chimica, Communication Abstracts, EMBASE, Food Science & Technology Abstracts, MEDLINE, Metadex, Veterinary Science Database, Civil Engineering Abstracts
  • Page Numbers: pp.425-436
  • Keywords: DNA profiling and identification, Forensic genetics, Questioned documents and paper, Short tandem repeat (STR) amplification, Touch DNA from contact traces, LATENT FINGERPRINTS, RECOVERY
  • Istanbul University Affiliated: Yes


The questions on which judges/prosecutors apply for expertise are mostly about by whom a document was drafted/signed. In this study, a new collective strategy was constructed including a collection method, a modified-silica-based DNA isolation method, and a novel purification method on four contact traces formed on four different paper surface during writing, using PCR with AmpFlSTR (R) GlobalFiler (TM) STR kit (after experimental comparison between three different kits) and identification using CE. This collective analysis approach is more sensitive and superior to its equivalents on questioned documents in literature because quantifiable amounts of touch DNA and profiles with high loci percentages (100% on day 1, 72.72% after 1 week) were obtained up to 1 week even after the most challenging conditions of sample forming that a forensic scientist can meet; as washing hands just before drafting and using a very low pressure in a shorter time (simulating a simple contact real conditions while drafting), using no visualizing technique that damages the document. Using the strategy, four most commonly used paper types were compared, to see in which of them DNA could be recovered better. The success of this strategy was shown on the 1-day to 10-year-old real samples from a diary and some archive documents from a law office (including the mix-DNA and different ballpoint pens). Thus, it became possible to show if a person had touched the document, in high success rates up to 1 week as a secondary evidence, when primary evidences are insufficient for the detection of document fraud offenses.