Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorANILANMERT, Beril
dc.contributor.authorYÜKSELOĞLU, Emel Hülya
dc.contributor.authorCengiz, Salih
dc.contributor.authorÇAVUŞ YONAR, Fatma
dc.contributor.authorRayimoglu, Gulten
dc.date.accessioned2021-12-10T09:51:09Z
dc.date.available2021-12-10T09:51:09Z
dc.identifier.citationÇAVUŞ YONAR F., Rayimoglu G., ANILANMERT B., YÜKSELOĞLU E. H. , Cengiz S., "Who touched the document?: A new overall strategy for collection and identification of DNA from the questioned documents as a supportive evidence", ELECTROPHORESIS, 2021
dc.identifier.issn0173-0835
dc.identifier.othervv_1032021
dc.identifier.otherav_174091eb-1c6e-4bd0-b23f-f6c4353951b0
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12627/168626
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1002/elps.202100192
dc.description.abstractThe 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.
dc.language.isoeng
dc.subjectTemel Bilimler
dc.subjectBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (miscellaneous)
dc.subjectClinical Biochemistry
dc.subjectCancer Research
dc.subjectMolecular Biology
dc.subjectDrug Discovery
dc.subjectAging
dc.subjectGeneral Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
dc.subjectBiochemistry
dc.subjectStructural Biology
dc.subjectAnalytical Chemistry
dc.subjectFiltration and Separation
dc.subjectChemistry (miscellaneous)
dc.subjectGeneral Chemistry
dc.subjectBiochemistry (medical)
dc.subjectLife Sciences
dc.subjectHealth Sciences
dc.subjectPhysical Sciences
dc.subjectBİYOKİMYASAL ARAŞTIRMA YÖNTEMLERİ
dc.subjectBiyoloji ve Biyokimya
dc.subjectYaşam Bilimleri (LIFE)
dc.subjectKİMYA, ANALİTİK
dc.subjectKimya
dc.subjectTemel Bilimler (SCI)
dc.subjectBİYOKİMYA VE MOLEKÜLER BİYOLOJİ
dc.subjectMoleküler Biyoloji ve Genetik
dc.subjectTıp
dc.subjectSağlık Bilimleri
dc.subjectTemel Tıp Bilimleri
dc.subjectBiyokimya
dc.subjectYaşam Bilimleri
dc.subjectMoleküler Biyoloji ve Genetik
dc.subjectSitogenetik
dc.subjectAnalitik Kimya
dc.titleWho touched the document?: A new overall strategy for collection and identification of DNA from the questioned documents as a supportive evidence
dc.typeMakale
dc.relation.journalELECTROPHORESIS
dc.contributor.departmentIstanbul Univ Cereahpasa , ,
dc.contributor.firstauthorID2757899


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record