Version	1	/	Date	of	Issue:	10.29.15	/	Issuing	Authority:	Forensic	Science	Standards	Board	(FSSB)

OSAC	Research	Needs Assessment Form

Title	of	research	need:

Keywords:

Submitting subcommittee(s): Date	Approved:

(If	SAC	review	identifies	additional	subcommittees,	add	them	to	the	box	above.)

Background	information:

1.	 Description	of	research	need:

The	current	quality	assurance	standard (QAS)	for	forensic	testing	laboratories	requires	that	human	

DNA	quantitation	is	attempted	for	all	forensic	unknowns.	This	requirement	poses	a	problem	for	

evidence	types	expected	to	yield	low	amounts	of	DNA	such	as	DNA	swabs	from	cartridge	casings,	

other	touched	objects,	or	single	fingermarks.	It	has	been	shown	that	direct	PCR	amplification	

without	prior	DNA	extraction	can	improve	the	DNA	typing	success	rate,	for	example	for	touched	

fabric and	fired	cartridge	cases.		 In	the	example	of	fired	cartridge	cases,	rarely,	if	ever,	will	greater	

than	1ng	of	DNA	be	recovered.		However,	due	to	the	QAS	requirements,	an	extraction	is	performed	

solely	to	be	able	to	perform	the	quantitation	step	prior.		At	this	point,	the	entire	extract	typically	

will	be	concentrated	and	the	entire	volume	used	during	the	amplification.		Unfortunately,	it	has	

been	demonstrated	numerous	times	that	a	significant	portion	of	DNA	is	lost	during	DNA	extraction

and	concentration.		If	there	is	no	value	to	performing	the	extraction	and	quantitation, it	would	seem	

logical	to	avoid	steps	that	waste	DNA, and increase	the	handling	of	a	sample	which	increases	the	

risk	of	contamination/laboratory	error.	Furthermore,	the	quantitation	results	obtained	for	DNA	

from	these	types	of	samples	are	often	not	predictive	of	the	quality	of	the	profile	generated	after	

amplification.	 If	a	sample	is	subjected	to	DNA	extraction,	it	can	also	be	advantageous	to	not	

consume additional	extract	for	the	mandatory	quantitation	step.	It	should	be	possible	to	establish	

categories	of	biological	evidence	where	the	DNA	yield	is	expected	to	be	within	a	certain	range	and	

robust	STR	amplification	results	can	be	obtained	without	quantitation	data.	

Since	there	is	a	wide	body	of	literature	regarding direct	PCR	and/or	the	correlation	between	

evidence	type	and	amplification	success,	we	emphasize	that	this research	may take	the	form	of	a	

literature	survey	that	compiles existing	data	and	defines the	desired	categories based	on	combined	

findings	from	independent	studies.						

Assessment	of	specific	classes	of	evidence	types	to	determine	the	necessity	to	

quantify	DNA	before	amplification	of	human	autosomal	STR	loci

DNA	quantitation,	trace	DNA,	direct	PCR,	

BDRIC 8/25/16
Version	1	/	Date	of	Issue:	10.29.15	/	Issuing	Authority:	Forensic	Science	Standards	Board	(FSSB)

2.	 Key	bibliographic	references	relating	to	this	research	need:

3a.		In	what	ways	would	the	research	results	improve	current	laboratory	capabilities?

3b.		In	what	ways	would	the	research	results	improve	understanding	of	the	scientific	basis	for	the	

subcommittee(s)?

3c.		In	what	ways	would	the	research	results	improve	services	to	the	criminal	justice	system?

Garvin,	AM	and	Fritsch	A.	(2013),	Purifying	and	Concentrating	Genomic	DNA	from	Mock	Forensic	

Samples	Using	Millipore	Amicon	Filters.	J	Forensic	Sci,	58:	S173–S175.

Holland	M,	Wendt	F.	(2015)	Evaluation	of	the	RapidHITTM	200,	an	automated	human	identification	

system	for	STR	analysis	of	single	source	samples. Forensic	Sci	Int	Genet	14:76–85.

Lee	SB,	McCord	B,	Buel	E	(2014)	Advances	in	forensic	DNA	quantification:	a	review.	Electrophoresis	

35:3044-3052.

Linacre	A,	Pekarek	V,	Swaran	YC,	Tobe	SS	(2010)	Generation	of	DNA	profiles	from	fabrics	without	

DNA	extraction.	Forensic	Sci.	Int.: Genet	4:137-141.

Phipps	M,	Petricevic	S	(2007)	The	tendency	of	individuals	to	transfer	DNA	to	handled	items.	

Forensic	Sci.	Int.	168:162-168.

Templeton	JEL,	Linacre	A	(2014)	DNA	profiles	from	fingermarks.	BioTechniques	S7:259-266.

Templeton	JEL,	Taylor	D,	Handt	O,	Skuza	P,	Linacre	A	(2015)	Direct	PCR	Improves	the	Recovery	of	

DNA	from	Various	Substrates.		JFS	60(6):		1558-1562.

Mapes AA, Kloosterman AD, et al. Knowledge on DNA Success Rates to Optimize the DNA Analysis 

Process: From Crime Scene to Laboratory. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 61:1055-1061 

Establishing	a	category	of	evidence	where	the	results	are	not	compromised	after	omitting	human	

DNA	quantitation	will	result	in	faster	turn	around	time	for	evidence	testing,	higher	throughput	and	

conservation of	DNA	extracts.	In	addition	to	having	a	positive	effect	on	laboratory	capacity,	this	

would	also	enable	laboratories	to	adopt	direct	PCR	techniques,	which	could	lead	to	increased	STR	

typing	success	rates.		

In	recent	years	DNA	testing	has	been	expanded	to	many	types	of	biological	evidence	such	as	

touched	objects	known	to	generally	yield	low	amounts	of	DNA.	There	is	no	systematic	study	

categorizing	touch	evidence	sample	types	based	on	yield,	and	then	using	this	information	to	

proceed	to	STR	amplification	and	result	interpretation	without	having	specific	quantitation	data	

for	each	sample.		This	research	is	also	needed	to	provide	a	safe	mechanism	to	divide	biological	

evidence	prior	to	applying	single	device	DNA	testing	techniques.

Being	allowed	to	omit	the	mandatory	DNA	quantitation	step	for	certain	categories	of	biological	

evidence	would	decrease	turnaround times,	and	increase	laboratory	throughput.	This	would	

improve	case	resolution,	support	the	identification	of	repeat	offenders,	and	help	victims	and	

victims’	families.	It	is	also	feasible	that	the	implementation	of	direct	PCR	for	certain	sample	types	

will	increase	the	STR	success	rate	and	thus	result	in	more	conclusive	results	such	as	positive	

associations and/or		more	exonerations.
Version	1	/	Date	of	Issue:	10.29.15	/	Issuing	Authority:	Forensic	Science	Standards	Board	(FSSB)

4.		Status assessment	(I,	II,	III,	or	IV):		

This	research	need	has	been	identified	by	one	or	more	subcommittees	of	OSAC	and	is	being	provided	as	an	

informational	resource	to	the	community.

Major gap	

in	current	

knowledge

Minor gap	

in	current	

knowledge

No	or	limited

current	research	

is	being	

conducted

I III

Existing current	

research	is	being	

conducted

II IV

// Approval	date:

(Approval	is	by	majority	vote	of	subcommittee.		Once	approved,	forward	to	SAC.)

1.		Does	the	SAC	agree	with	the	research	need?				Yes		X⃝							No							⃝		

2.		Does	the	SAC	agree	with	the	status	assessment?				Yes				X	⃝							No							⃝	

If	no,	what	is	the	status assessment	of	the	SAC:

Approval	date:

(Approval	is	by	majority	vote	of	SAC.		Once	approved,	forward	to	NIST	for	posting.)

		II

Subcommittee 4/29/2016

SAC

08/24/2016