Advertisement

The effect of substrates and time of deposition on molecular analysis of fly artifacts

Published:October 25, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2022.10.062

      Abstract

      The activity of animals and insects at the crime scene can provide useful elements to reconstruct the dynamics of the event. Any insect that interacts with wet body fluids can produce artifacts which can be confused with human bloodstains. Considering that flies are the early colonizers of the crime scene and first players of the process of contamination, the problem is to distinguish stains produced by fly regurgitation or fecal elimination on a crime scene. Actually, fly artifacts are morphologically very similar to impact, projected, sneezed, and expirated bloodstains and cannot be reliably distinguished using presumptive or confirmatory tests for identification of human blood. Several techniques have been proposed to differentiate insect-derived artifacts based on morphological approaches and immunological assay. Recently, a DNA-based method by the analysis of the cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) gene has been designed for the distinction of fly artifacts from human bloodstains on spots characterized by different morphological features and deposited by fly on a glass surface.
      Here, we present a study to assess the feasibility of the molecular analysis of fly artifacts deposited on different substrates as glass, paper, plexiglass and cotton and to evaluate the COI amplification success at different time intervals up to two years after fly artifacts deposition. Our results showed that the deposition time seems do not affect the detection of fly artifacts DNA, while a substrate interference was demonstrated.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Rivers D.B.
        • Geiman T.
        Insect artifacts are more than just altered bloodstains.
        Insects. 2017; 8: 37
      1. Scientific Working Group on Bloodstain Pattern Analysis: Guidelines for the Minimum Educational and Training Requirements for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis (SWGSTAIN). Forensic Science Communications, Jan 2008 - Vol 10 - N. 1 https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/jan2008/standards/2008_01_standards01.htm.

        • Durdle A.
        • van Oorschot R.A.
        • Mitchell R.J.
        The morphology of fecal and regurgitation artifacts deposited by the blow fly Lucilia cuprina fed a diet of human blood.
        J. Forensic Sci. 2013; 58: 897-903
        • Kulstein G.
        • Amendt J.
        • Zehner R.
        Blow fly artifacts from blood and putrefaction fluid on various surfaces: a source for forensic STR typing.
        Èntomol. Exp. Appl. 2015; 3: 255-262
        • Bini C.
        • Giorgetti A.
        • Iuvaro A.
        • et al.
        A DNA-based method for distinction of fly artifacts from human bloodstains.
        Int. J. Leg. Med. 2021; 135: 2155-2161
        • Pelletti G.
        • Mazzotti M.C.
        • Fais P.
        • et al.
        Scanning electron microscopy in the identification of fly artifacts.
        Int. J. Leg. Med. 2019; 133: 1575-1580
        • Rivers D.B.
        Differential responses of adult Calliphora vicina to dry bloodstains on porous versus non-porous surface materials.
        Forensic Sci. Int. 2021; : 328