Advancing Criminal Investigations: Rapid DNA Program Considerations
Join Michael Garvey, Director of the Office of Forensic Science, and Ryan Gallagher, Criminalistics Unit Manager, both of the Philadelphia Police Department, as well as Robert O'Brien, Forensic Biology Section Leader, from the National Forensic Science Technology Center, for a candid look at new ways to combat crime. Director Garvey will describe the Philadelphia Police Department's vision of transparent policing through objective forensic science. Learn how his agency is expanding their laboratory toolbox to drive actionable intelligence that exonerates the innocent, identifies subjects, and links patterns to solve and reduce crime. Robert will share data from case-type sample testing to demonstrate the performance of Rapid and traditional DNA methods and procedures. In this webinar, you will learn more about: •Best practices for the non-CODIS use of Rapid DNA results from crime scene evidence •Laboratory considerations for implementing a Rapid DNA program •Tips and tricks for maximizing Rapid DNA results from evidence samples •Post-Rapid DNA confirmatory testing with traditional DNA testing methods
You Might Also Like
Empowering arrestee booking with rapid DNA A state police crime laboratory and sheriff’s department partnered to improve crime-fighting using the latest DNA testing technology
Fishers Police Department Rapid DNA Investigative Leads Program
Welcome to Advancing Criminal Investigations,
Rapid DNA Program Considerations,
brought to you by Forensic and sponsored by Thermo Fisher Scientific.
This is the third webinar in the 2021 Future Trends
In forensic DNA Technology Series.
My name is Michelle Taylor, Editor-in-Chief of Forensic,
and I will be your moderator throughout.
For today's webinar, you can earn one hour of continuing education credit.
Following the conclusion of the webinar, you will receive an email with
information on how to obtain
CE Credit Documentation.
We have a great lineup scheduled to present to you today,
but before we begin, I'd like to take just a minute to cover a few logistics.
At the end of the presentations, we will hold a question and answer session.
To ask a question, click on the Ask a Question tab in the upper right corner of
the screen.
Please also take note that the right side of the screen features an overview of
today's webinar,
as well as more information about our speakers.
If you have a technical question during today's event,
click on the Test Your Connection button on the bottom of your screen.
From there, you can access additional webinar support.
We also invite you to use the social media widgets beneath the webinar
to share with your friends and colleagues.
First today, you will hear from Michael Garvey,
Director of the Office of Forensic Science with the Philadelphia Police
Department.
There, he provides oversight to all forensic operations,
including maintaining national quality standards and advancing the city's
forensic capabilities.
Director Garvey also serves as an advisor to the Philadelphia Police Department
on issues
related to Homeland Security and Intelligence.
Prior to joining the Philadelphia Police Department,
Director Garvey served the U.S. government for 15 years with the FBI and CIA.
In these positions, he worked traditional criminal casework,
counter-terrorism cases, and other intelligence operations around the globe.
Next, you will hear from Robert O'Brien, the Forensic Biology
Section Lead at the National Forensic Science Center at Florida International
University.
Robert conducts forensic biology research, including test plan design and
performs experiments
to evaluate equipment and techniques used in biological collection and DNA
analysis.
His technology evaluations have been published as reports, presentations,
and scientific posters at industry events, and reference publications.
He has developed and delivered training for new technologies, including rapid
DNA
instrumentation, and advises operators on tests and techniques available for
field use
in biological samples detection and screening.
And lastly, Director Garvey's colleague, Ryan Gallagher, the Criminalistics
Unit Manager
with the Philadelphia Police Department's Office of Forensic Science, will join
us for
the Q&A portion of the webinar. As a Criminalistics Unit Manager, Ryan is
responsible for the daily
operations of the DNA Laboratory, which processes forensic casework for the
city of Philadelphia.
Ryan began his career in forensics with the Philadelphia Police Department in
2006.
For more than 10 years, he worked in the Criminalistics Unit,
processing hundreds of forensic cases for biological fluids and ignitable
liquids.
For the past five years, Ryan has overseen the operations of the Criminalistic
Unit.
Thank you for joining us today for the third webinar in the 2021 Future Trends
in Forensic
DNA Technology Series. Mark your calendars because the series continues after
the summer,
with the next one planned for October 7th. Please be sure to check your email
for more
information on how to obtain CE Credit Documentation for your participation in
today's webinar,
and we look forward to seeing you next time. Now, without further ado, let's
get underway.
Hello, my name is Michael Garvey. I am the Director of the Office of Forensic
Science,
the Philadelphia Police Department. Today, I will be talking about expanding
the DNA toolbox, or
really how we have used technical intelligence or Friends of Science to drive
investigations,
to try to encourage the concept of transparent intelligence led police.
The primary focus of today's talk will be rapid DNA and how we have implemented
rapid DNA into our
technical intelligence program. So, everything about this new way of looking at
forensic science is focusing on the mission and it's focusing on intelligence
led investigation,
transparent policing, intelligence led policing, data driven policing. These
are all terms that
over the last year have actually become more important than probably ever
before. People want to know
that law enforcement is using the proper tools to get to the truth. And
arguably, there is no better
tool for this than properly performed forensic science. And when we focus the
mission on intelligence
led investigations, and we're also always going to be prepared for trial. Now,
it is, and it does,
require a refocusing of the efforts that we typically done in crime labs. Trad
itionally,
crime labs were resource limited. So, we had to prioritize things based quite
often on trial
data. For those investigations that are given the most priority, those that are
being asked about
the most, those that are very sensitive. And we would also often look at this
as reporting
our findings to the submitter of the evidence. The case gets submitted, the
results get reported
to that person. And of course, on top of all of this, it always had to be done
objectively,
reliably, and independently to never compromise quality. But we know that that
was
restrally scratching the surface and under the surface is the gigantic iceberg
of where we could
actually do more if given the resources or if maybe we've rethought some of our
processes so that
we could drive more investigations. So in a modified approach to this, we are
intelligence driven.
We are trying to aid investigations as early as possible to focus efforts on
exonerating
the innocent in a more timely manner, linking cases to each other more quickly,
and identifying true perpetrators of crime. When we do this, forensic science
or technical
intelligence improves the way our law enforcement agencies will actually
investigate crime,
arguably causing higher closure rates, being able to solve crime more, and
ultimately
preventing crime and increasing public safety. In order to do this, of course,
we have to leverage
resources. We have to look at new partnerships, look at new workflows, and
maybe modify workflows
that we currently have. We are probably still going to be resource limited. I
can tell you we are here.
But by changing the workflows and leveraging resources, we can do more with the
resources we have.
We also have to think about changes after the fact. Who do we submit reports to
? How do we share
information, not just to the submitter, but to other stakeholders such as
intelligence
bureaus and things like that, so that we can actually generate larger level
leads and actually
generate supplemental products, perhaps products on crime trends, or even in
some cases,
identifying potential areas where there might be a retaliatory shooting.
So these are things that forensic science can help law enforcement in general,
if we get the
information out there, and we let that information be transformed into
intelligence.
And of course, throughout this, we still must be objective, reliable, and
independent.
So let's look at how we started this. In the beginning, most of us throughout
the country,
the traditional DNA testing, we did it in accredited laboratories, in-house
labs or public partner
labs or vendor labs, and it was evidence from a single case compared to the
subjects of that case,
with a single report being issued and possibly going to court for that one case
And we knew at that time very quickly that that wasn't enough.
So we began to make local DNA databases where we pooled the profiles and where
we searched the
profiles and where we found linkages between cases and linkages to subjects,
and we were able to
produce actionable intelligence. And crime labs throughout the country did this
in the early days
of DNA testing. And that wasn't a big enough toolbox either. So we moved on to
CODIS, the combined
DNA index system, a very large toolbox in which local laboratories can search
profiles, uploads
in state systems, and search profiles across a whole state, uploads in the
national system,
managed by the FBI, and search profiles throughout the whole country. Without
question, CODIS was,
is, and will continue to be, one of the most important technical intelligence
tools our country has
for law enforcement. Now, CODIS also brings with it some requirements in order
to maintain
the quality of the CODIS profiles. All CODIS entries require that the sample
has been worked
or reviewed by CODIS laboratory. So that means if we know that primal
laboratories are always
not resource properly, then that means they're not always going to have the
capacity to work
every case that is submitted to them. So sometimes, because of the funding,
which in impacts
prioritization and prioritization, it goes hand in hand with a laboratory's
capacity,
some agencies are looking for other alternatives or have had to look for other
alternatives
outside of their CODIS laboratory for cases that may not meet the current
priority system in place.
So people have looked to expand their DNA toolbox. Now, here in the
Philadelphia area, we've
one of the things we've done is obviously we do traditional DNA testing. We do
outsourcing of
DNA samples, but we also looked at how can we leverage some other capabilities,
some other
technologies. And one of those is rapid DNA. In our rapid DNA program, we look
at reference samples.
We're able to, in the crime laboratory, have reference samples that come in,
get worked through
our rapid DNA program. That takes time and energy off of our DNA analysts that
are working forensic
evidence, and they can prioritize working evidence. It has also led to quicker
CODIS confirmation
testing for them. So when we get a CODIS hit and we need to collect another
sample to confirm that
hit, we can quickly process that CODIS confirmation on our rapid instruments.
But it also means that
we can do other reference samples as well for more investigative leads. But
outside of reference
samples, investigative leads can also be in the form of crime scene samples.
Crime scene samples
that meet our validation criteria that we've shown that certain quality and
quantity samples,
where we can preserve enough sample for traditional DNA testing, we can employ
rapid DNA on
to give us more timely investigative leads. Now, the good news there is the FBI
task force on
rapid DNA has issued guidelines for that. Our program follows those, and we'll
speak more on that
briefly. One other quick point that I want to make is there is a difference
between rapid DNA
as it's traditionally defined and modified rapid DNA. So all depending on if
you're a law enforcement
agency without a crime lab, or if you're an accredited crime lab, you may use
one or both of these
terms. Rapid DNA traditionally is the SWAV in profile out, lights out process,
where through
the rapid process, you put a SWAV in, you get a profile out and through the
expert system,
you can rely on that profile. We're talking about single source samples, high
quantity,
high quality. Modified rapid DNA is using the rapid DNA instrument, but in the
hands of a
qualified DNA analyst, that can do some more interpretations. So there's these
two approaches,
but in either approach, let's be clear, crime scene profiles generated by rapid
DNA technology
are not eligible for codes. So these profiles cannot be searched into codes. In
certain
situations, reference samples can be and will be able to be entered into codes,
especially when
we start talking about booking stations in some areas that have the proper laws
. So let's unlock
that world of rapid intelligence or rapid DNA intelligence a little bit more.
Like I just mentioned, some places where they have laws that permit DNA
collection from an
individual upon their arrest, there will be very soon, because there are
programs being set up
in conjunction with the FBI, and there are pilot programs out there right now,
where upon arrest,
samples are taken, and those samples work in a rapid DNA system, will be
eligible to be put
directly into CODIS. Outside of that type of processing, as I already said,
there's other
reference samples sort of in the same way that can be processed by those of us,
for example,
in Pennsylvania, where we do not have a resty law, but we still have people
that are being
interviewed or other contact with law enforcement where through informed
voluntary consent,
warrants, or court orders, we would obtain reference samples from these
individuals. Rapid DNA is
used to process those samples for timely information. Rapid DNA is also useful
for investigative leads
at a crime scene. So samples can be collected at a crime scene, and be brought
back to our laboratory
to be put on the rapid instrument if they meet our criteria, and there's enough
sample remaining
for traditional DNA testing, as well as subjects in that
for that crime scene that could be compared almost in real time, potentially,
excluding people that we don't want to focus the investigation on anymore, and
perhaps focusing
the investigation on other DNA profiles that have been obtained. We can also
look at disaster
victim ID. So in the case of a large, like a plane crash or a train crash,
samples could be collected
from victims, as well as family members, and the rapid DNA instrument either in
the field,
or with samples being brought back to the lab, could be used for human
identification in a very
timely manner. And in sort of the same way, we can also consider things like
human traffic.
About 25 to 30 percent of all human traffic individuals throughout the world
are children.
So, and most major cities have a human trafficking problem. So when we may need
to identify
individuals who are being human trafficked, DNA testing is one of those
possibilities. Rapid DNA,
provides a quick alternative to be able to do those identifications.
Now, when we're thinking about all those possibilities of putting into your
program,
we have to consider how do you set up the rapid DNA program. And here at the
Philadelphia Police
Department, here are some of the categories that we looked at when we were
setting up our program.
Now, there's no coincidence here that these same categories are categories that
are talked about
by the FBI's rapid DNA test force. I'm not going to go into these in great
detail,
because that would be a whole talk in and of itself. But let's just quickly
look at a few.
Let's consider administrative practices. These are going to be your overarching
practices of
how your program is going to work. The primary consideration here would be that
if you're a law
enforcement agency, or that if you're a law enforcement agency that does not
have its own prime
laboratory, you want to make sure that any rapid DNA program that you're
setting up is done in
partnership, is done in direct collaboration with your local CODIS laboratory,
because they're going
to be able to help you with all the rest of the parts of this process.
Instruments need to be
validated. Whether you're in the crime lab, we're going to be using it in the
field.
Instruments need to be validated. Protocols need to be written and followed.
And then when it comes to
staffing, whether you're in a crime lab, or whether you're a law enforcement
agency,
you're going to have to identify the staff, and you're going to have to train
them appropriately
for what they're going to be responsible for. And you're going to need to
proficiency test them
as well to make sure they are competent. You're going to have to create
collection protocols.
What type of evidence will you collect? What type of evidence will you not
collect?
How are you going to collect it to preserve sample for your primary and
traditional
STR typing back at the crime lab laboratory? How are you going to manage
comparisons and
reports? What will they say? What won't they say? And making sure that everyone
knows the difference
between a laboratory report with a formal comparison that includes stats and an
investigative or
intelligence report, which may just give the primary indication of a match or a
no match.
You have to know the difference, and it has to be clearly defined. And then you
're going to have
to have conversations about what does this mean for court? And again, this is
where collaboration
with your local crime laboratory will be extremely helpful. Now, as you move
through this process
creating this program, understand that the FBI Rapid DNA Task Force has already
put out
considerations and best practices for law enforcement use. So these are
considerations
whether you are working this in a crime lab or outside of a crime lab to help
you set up your
program for Rapid DNA today. Also, leaders in the forensic community in this
country and across
the globe have also written expectations for future developments of the
technology to push
the Rapid DNA companies to improve the technologies to the point where we hope
someday that we will
be able to analyze crime scene samples in certain, you know, meeting certain
criteria
and those profiles be eligible for COAS. We are not there yet, but that is the
future expectation
that if we can continue to improve these capabilities that our Rapid DNA
programs right now that are
used for local investigative leads may also at some point, done properly, be
able to be put into
COAS. Now, in the meantime, we don't have access to COAS for rapid DNA profiles
. So some people may
question, well, what's the point then? This is really just like our traditional
capabilities.
We have a case, we work the case, we have a subject or not, but we don't have
the ability to search
anything. Well, that's true if you don't go back to that old second thought,
which is local DNA
databases. So here in the Delaware Valley region, or here in the Philadelphia
police,
we created a non-COAS regional DNA database to compare legally collected DNA
samples,
whether they be reference or crime scene samples, that have been worked in an
accredited laboratory
or an approved Rapid DNA program. Now make no mistake about this, local DNA
databases will not
replace COAS. They can augment it though. So whereas right now we may not be
able to put certain
reliable validated profiles into COAS, these local regional databases give us
an alternative
to generate actionable intelligence to help solve and prevent crime. So locally
, the
Delaware Valley is in the southeastern region of Pennsylvania. Our system is
run and managed by
the Philadelphia Police Department Office of Forensic Science. We are a CODIS
laboratory. We
are fully accredited QAS compliant. So we manage the regional DNA database. We
partner with our
neighbors in Bucks County and Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, both of which
have extensive local
DNA programs, primarily utilizing fully accredited vendor laboratories, and
both of which do have
had access to local DNA databases for several years. The problem is these local
DNA databases
did not communicate with each other. So we knew there were investigative leads
being missed.
The good news is when we brought online Rapid DNA technology, when we brought
on Rapid Hit ID
within Philadelphia, that's also online in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, and
Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania, that the platform that gives us the capability to do rapid DNA
technology also
provided us the fundamental capability to connect our systems to actually
create a local regional
DNA database without having to start from scratch. So we use the Rapid Hit
platform as the basic
backbone of our Delaware Valley investigative DNA database. Through this system
, we have signed
MOUs. We have required validations, protocols, we have QA requirements, legal
requirements on
what can be collected, what can be put in. We have IT requirements for safety
and security,
and we also have protocols and requirements on how we will actually put out
investigative leads.
So a couple of quick examples. Now, what you're clearly going to see here in
these two examples
that I will provide is they're not arguably rapid, but I wanted to show them
because it's a good
contrast of where we were and where we are now. So we have, when we went online
with our regional
system in January of 2021, we immediately obtained several DNA kits. So let's
look at this one very
quickly. We have a sexual assault kit processed by the Philadelphia police back
in 2017. No leads,
no hits, no codis hits. Now, Lux County, Pennsylvania, in September of 2019,
they processed a reference
sample via Rapid DNA. However, we did not have a connected system yet. So even
though 695 days went
past and there would have been a hit, there is no Delaware Valley system. So
there is no hit.
481 days after that, when we go online, we get the hit. In our current system,
when Lux County processes a reference sample and puts it into their Rapid Hit
system,
and it meets all the QAQC checks, it would move over to the DNA system for the
region,
and we would have obtained that hit immediately. So you can see going forward,
this is going to be a much more powerful timely tool. Case number two, if you
look at it like this,
one day difference between a crime scene sample being worked in a profile
obtained in a Bucks
County vehicle theft and a sexual assault case in Philadelphia, one day. But we
did not know
those two cases were linked together at all. 2028 days later, when the David
went live,
we got that hit. Well, I think the hit would have been much more timely, would
have been much
more actionable intelligence if it would have been produced in July of 2015. We
now know
going forward, these type of hits will be obtained immediately because of the
partnership,
because of the profile of sharing, but also because of our rapid DNA
capabilities and
the connectivity that using the same instruments provides us. So as we continue
from here,
what is the PPV OFS looking at as we continue figuring out how do we actually
do technical
intelligence, dry investigations forward? Clearly, we're going to continue
traditional DNA laboratory
work that's not going anywhere. We will continue full access to CODIS, the
eldest, the estus, and
the end of searching profiles throughout the whole country. We will continue to
work with the FBI
on our partnership of hopefully as we further develop our rapid DNA program and
other people
with developed their rapid DNA programs, working to the point of someday in
maybe several years,
maybe sooner, getting rapid DNA profiles into CODIS. Again, CODIS isn't going
anywhere and it is
one of the most powerful technical intelligence tools U.S. law enforcement has.
We will locally
still grow and use our rapid DNA database system linking it to other regional
non-CODIS
DNA databases to find those missing hits. We also utilize other enhanced DNA
techniques,
whether that be genetic genealogy, genetic phenotyping, and we will continue to
expand
the testing that we will consider, whether that's through traditional DNA or
through rapid DNA testing.
Expanding testing, what I mean is not new technologies but new items that we
may work.
What other types of items should we be working that will aid us in solving
crimes, identifying
crime patterns? So if we look at crime gun violence right now, it is surging.
So when we
consider what type of evidence should we be working? Should we be working more
of the swabs from firearms?
Should we be working things like fired cartridge casings? What is the next
stage in forensic
technical intelligence? DNA is going to be a part of it no matter what. So as
you ask your question,
what size DNA toolbox is right for you, it's basically going to be based on
your resources
and managing your resources effectively, efficiently, and economically to
leverage those resources in
the best way you can through traditional DNA capabilities and rapid DNA
capabilities to
accomplish the mission, which is generate actionable intelligence, exonerate
the innocent, link cases
to each other, identify true perpetrators of crime, and increase public safety.
So with that,
I thank you and I thank our partners throughout the Delaware Valley region.
Your next presentation
will be more technical on some of the, you know, do's and don'ts for rapid DNA
technology.
And once that is concluded, we will have questions and answers.
My name is Robert O'Brien. I am the forensic biology section lead at the
National Forensic
Science Technology Center at Florida International University. NFSDC is also a
partner with Thermo
Fisher Scientific. We are the rapid DNA Center of Excellence. So today I'm
going to be talking
about some of the sample testing that we've been doing since we've become the
Center of Excellence
and some of our most recent work. So for an overview, what we're going to deal
with is I'm going to
look back on stuff we've done on reference samples, some low-level samples,
some mock crime team
samples, on most recently bone samples, and then some other testing we've done
when it comes to
the transporting of run samples back to the laboratory for rerunning.
So just a quick overview, the rapid ID system is a single instrument,
processes reference samples in about 90 minutes. It presents other samples like
blood and saliva
samples in about 95 minutes. It has two different sample cartridges. You've got
the ACE cartridge,
which has a purple label, and that's what you use for your reference samples.
And then you have
the rapid Intel cartridge, which is a pink label, and that's what you're going
to use for your blood
and other lower-level type samples. The sample cartridges are good for about
eight months,
refrigerated, or two months at room temperature, and they both use the Global
Father Express chemistry.
So just another overview, I did discuss this on an earlier webinar. The ACE
sample cartridge is
intended for use with reference samples like buckleswaps. It can also be used
for other high-level samples.
For example, blood, if you have a lot of blood, it can actually work with the
ACE cartridge,
and the runtime is about 90 minutes. The rapid Intel sample cartridge, that's
intended for
use with single-source samples, but also crime-scene type samples. So if you
have lower levels of blood,
if you have saliva, you know, if you drive saliva, dry blood, for example, all
these will work.
It does have an improved performance for low-level samples, and it's used for
blood,
drinking containers, cigarette butts, and other similar samples. And that
runtime is 95 minutes.
This is just an example of some of the data we generated when we did 20 buckles
wabs.
So this had a 100% first pass success rate with the ACE cartridge. That
basically means,
as you can see on the left-hand side, we have a green check mark, and all of
these were run
one time, and every time they gave us a full profile. In order for you to get a
green check
mark in this system, it means you literally have a perfect profile. There's no
imbalances,
there is no dropout or anything like that. So that's what a green check mark
means. So all of
these samples, different buckleswabs, will run, and we got first pass success
rate of 100%.
Some of the lower-level sample testing we did, we did do a range of input from
1,280 nanograms
to 10 nanograms. This is the total DNA input. So not nanograms for microliter,
this is actually
total nanograms. And about the 20 nanogram markers where we started to see some
dropping off
in the number of loci that were recovered. So as you can see at the 20 nanogram
level,
out of the triple kit set we did, we did have one at 20, out of 21, another one
at 18,
out of 21, and a 10 nanograms, actually we only had one sample that had dropout
, which was 17
out of 21 loci we did get. So even though there was dropout at these levels, it
is important to
know that still more than enough data to make an identification. So you can
easily use this
for comparison purposes with lower-level type samples. Here is just a graph
representing what we did
with saliva samples on the different volumes. So this was not based on nan
ograms, this is actually
based on volume of DNA. And obviously at 8 microliters of saliva, we got 100%
of the alleles recovered,
and at one microliter of saliva, we actually got 85% of alleles recovered. Once
again,
plenty of data, good enough to make a comparison. For blood samples, we went
down to a little lower,
so we went down to half a microliter, and we started at a lower, so we started
at four microliters.
And there we went from a 99% recovery to 98%, and the lowest was 96%. So once
again,
96% of our alleles were recovered, and therefore we would definitely be able to
use that for comparison
purposes. Now, we also did here at the NFSCC, we did a lot of sample retesting.
So the idea behind
this is if you run a swab on the rapid ID, and for some reason you had to take
that same swab
back to the laboratory, and we run it using conventional DNA methods, was there
enough DNA left on that
swab to do that. So here we have, this is an example of the quantities. Now,
these quantities
are on the swab after it was removed from the rapid ID, and then run using
conventional DNA
methods, and quantified using quantifiler trio, the extraction process was the
prep filer express
on the automated robot. So as you can see from a buckle swab, even after
running it on the rapid
ID, we had a lot of DNA left over, got full profiles every time. We did
different varying numbers of
swipes on the cheek, because different agencies may have different requirements
as how many times
to swipe. So we did anywhere from one swipe to six swipes, no difference. We
got full DNA profiles
every time, and then we did some blood samples, all the way from 75 microliters
of blood, all the way
down to 20 microliters of blood, once again, we were able to get full profiles.
And as you all know,
typically for quantitate for amplification, you need at least one nanogram of
DNA. So when you look
at the nanograms of DNA, total nanograms of DNA left on that swab, after it was
run with rapid ID,
you can see that we could have actually generated a lot more of this profile
several times. So the
swab was able, could have been tested a lot more than we did.
Here's just a few examples of some of the data that we got off of. These were
more mock crime
scene type samples. So here we have a cigarette butt, this was actually left
outside. So what we did
is we had somebody smoke the cigarette butt, and then we had them drop it into
a container,
it was left outside for approximately a 24-hour period before it was collected.
Now it was exposed
to the heat of the day being in Florida and the humidity. It was not exposed to
being rained on,
because it was in a covered area, but it was left, it was outside. And here you
can see that we do
have some alleles in yellow, but for the most part, this is definitely giving
us enough data to make
comparison purposes. And of course, we were actually able to compare it to the
individual who smoked,
and definitely matched him at all the allele calls that we got. So this was
definitely a success.
This was from a cell phone, someone's cell phone. So this is where we're going
into more of a
category of touch DNA, and the results are not as high as what we saw with the
cigarette butt,
because the cigarette butt actually had saliva entailed into it. This is more
touch, sweat,
but even from this cigarette, the cell phone, we can tell it's definitely a
male profile.
We do have at least one, two, three, four, five, six, seven areas where we have
heterozygotes.
So we know that at least all the data is present at those seven areas. And if
you wanted to use
this, for example, an investigative lead purpose, you can definitely use this
to match it against
a suspect standard to give you an indication that person was present, to
possibly warrant for the
investigation or to exclude them from the crime. This was off of a side of a
gun. So this was the
side of the gun that we knew the person was handling it, and this was the side
of the gun that touched
their palm most. So once again, we swabbed the side of the gun and we ran it.
We can tell it's
a male profile, and we actually have a lot of the data which then match the
person who we ran
their reference sample. So once again, as an investigative lead, this is going
to give you a
lot of useful information to either exclude or warrant further investigation
into an individual.
We did do a plucked single here. So the route was in very good shape. We pl
ucked it. We were able
to see the epithelial sheet while we were testing it. The hair was simply
placed into the cartridge,
and then we put the stick of a swab to hold it down and to hold it in place.
Because if you don't,
the hair will actually float up with the region. So you don't want that to
happen. You want the
sample to get submerged when it's in the intel cartridge. And as you can see,
we got a beautiful
full profile here. We did the color of a t-shirt. So somebody wore their t-
shirt, they worked out,
and then they lent it to us to swab to first to swab. We did swab the color of
it. There are
two areas where there were possible locations of a mixture. We were not able to
determine who that
was. It did not come from anybody who swabbed the t-shirt, and obviously did
not come from the
wearer. So we weren't absolutely too sure about that. But for the most part, we
got very usable
data here, and once again, more than enough for comparison purposes. And then a
soda can. The soda
cans were really good. We did several soda cans, and they for the most part
gave us full DNA
profiles because you've got the transfer saliva, and as you know, saliva has
very high content of
DNA. So that was one of the really good things with soda cans. And this is just
a typical example
of the DNA profile we got off of a soda can. So this is a very good for
obviously comparison purposes.
I mean, this is CODIS quality data here. We did do some tests also with face
masks.
And basically what we did for the face mask is that they were worn for
different periods of time,
16 hours, 8 hours, 4 hours, and 2 hours. The mask was then swabbed and run in
the rapid ID.
The swab was removed after running in the rapid ID and then run using
conventional methods.
And we got full profiles on both the rapid ID and using conventional methods.
So obviously in the
height of COVID, everybody was wearing a face mask and a lot of times they
would be discarded.
So we were able to show that you could definitely get DNA off the face mask if
anybody's running
using it for anywhere from 2 to 16 hours. Even though things have probably
calmed down with the
mask a little bit now at the time of this recording, in the future this can
happen again, or it just
goes to show you that masks in general, something that somebody may use to
cover the nose on the
mouth will be good for rapid DNA testing. The latest thing we've worked on is
some bone samples.
So we actually procured a bone, a frozen femur, and we cut it into one in
segments with a band saw
just so that we would have different segments to test under different
conditions. One thing
that was done is that after we cut it with the band saw, I actually took a swab
and just simply
swabbed the bone dust that was on the band saw that was left behind. And the sw
ab of the bone
dust from the freezing femur was done at femur was run on the Intel cartridge.
So we ran it the
first time we got a full profile. So I took the same swab out, placed into
another cartridge,
ran it again, full profile took it out, ran it again, full profile ran again,
and still a full
profile. So after three times, after four times total, we got a full DNA
profile every time from
this bone dust that was run on the rapid hit ID and the Intel cartridge. This
is an example,
I'm sorry, this is an example of the DNA profile after the fourth run. So as
you can see from the
peak heights, we're still seeing peak heights in the 7000 range. We have heter
ozygotes at 6000,
that I really think that I could have run this sample again and again. Now
there is a six showing
up in the DYS 391, which I believe could possibly pull up because this actually
was a female bone.
And as you can see, there's no amelogennan. So there is part, I know why the am
elogennan. So it
is possible that that is pull up into possibly the 11 that is in the T-POCs.
But once again,
full DNA profile, thinking about using this rapid ID on bones for
identification purposes,
definitely on fresher bones, frozen bones, it works great. Now we did another
bone study. So here's
an example of where some of the segments that we cut from the bone. So we have
two bones, bone one
and bone two. Bone one was a little bit longer but not as wide, not as wide of
a diameter. So that
was about nearly five centimeters, so just under two inches. Bone two is about
three centimeters and
just about one inch. So both bones were sampled using the protocol from the job
aid. So with our
help, we helped Thermophisher Scientific develop a job aid. And this is more
meant to be field testing.
So as you can see, a drill was used to sample the bone. We did not do anything
in scapples.
It was weighed up. We did approximately 50 to 60 milligrams of the bone chips
that were
formed from the drilling. And then we placed them directly into the cartridge,
no swab or anything.
Now what we did is just as a little tip, what we did is we actually, as we were
drilling into the
bone, we placed a petri dish underneath to catch all the shavings that were
falling off of the
bone right into the petri dish. And then we simply took a little scoop and we
scoop those in and
threw them into the rapid-ed in Intel cartridge before we ran it. So now here
is an example of
we had several different samples taken from the bone. So it was extracted using
the profile of
BTA kit. It was quantified with quantified with tree on its amplified with
global filer. And it
was run on the seek studio. So bone one, we had a weight of about 50.24 nan
ograms,
sorry, 50.24 milligrams. And we had about 12.7 nanograms per microliter of the
quant. And bone two,
which was about 50.97 milligrams. We also had about 12.135 nanograms per micro
liter.
Of the quant. So you can see the starting quantities was about the same for
both bones.
Bone one was actually placed in a pond and sampled using a job-aid procedure
after
days one, four, and seven. So you can see there there is a little white cover
there. And what we
did is we put the bone inside of a container. We made several holes in the
container so that the
water can freely go in and any bacteria or anything can go in there and be
exposed to the bone.
We didn't want to just drop the bone in there because we were afraid something
would run off
with it because this was a fairly large pond. And there is a do not molest all
igator sign. So we
didn't want to risk that. But what we did was each time we took two samples
from the bone,
we drilled into the hard bone. And we took two samples. One was run using
conventional methods
and one was run in the rapid hit ID. Bone two, we wanted to expose that to the
elements.
So what we did was actually place it on one of the roots of our building where
it had direct
exposure to the sun and any rain that could have happened. So once again,
sampled off today is one,
four, and seven. Similar before, we took two samples every time. One sample was
run on conventional
and one sample is one of the rapid hit ID. Just to give you some idea of the
weather conditions
that occurred at the time. So when we place it out there, I mean, in general,
we're looking at about
anywhere from the lowest, which is about 78 degrees to the highest, which is
about 90.
Obviously, the fields like is always a big difference. We went from about 83 to
95.
The humidity, sometimes we went as high as 82% humidity. The lowest was 48%
humidity.
And then we have the actual, the days we had puddles on the ground, those are
the days we
knew it rained on the actual bone that was on the roof. And so yeah, so this is
, you know,
basically the conditions that the bones were exposed to, especially the one on
the roof. I mean,
the one on the pond, it was submerged for the entire time, but the one on the
roof was exposed
to varying conditions. So let's look at bone one on the pond. So at the
beginning of the study,
when we ran in the rapid ID, we got a full DNA profile, no problem. However,
after day one,
the total alleles detected were 10. So not 10 little, so I just 10 alleles. And
it was not going
to be enough for an identification. By day four, we went out to six alleles.
And then by day seven,
no alleles were detected. So as you can see, the quantity of nanograms for mic
liter on day one,
so actually that should have been neat. The first day, day zero, we had the 12.
75 nanograms
for mic liter. But at the end of day one, that dropped to 1.7. So in the pond,
it was really,
really a very quick degradation of the sample, as you can see. And obviously by
day four, it dropped
again to 0.732 nanograms for mic liter. And by day seven, we only had 0.12 to
nanograms for
mic liter. So as you can see, based on the conventional results, we were able
to get full DNA profiles
using conventional DNA. Like I said, the prep fileer, BTA kit, quantifilotrial,
global
fileer, and the seek studio from day one all the way down to day seven, no
issue. But on the rapid
ID, there was just not enough data to make an identification, or I would say
even for comparison
purposes. Now bone two is a little different from the outside. Obviously, there
'd be any other
study, we had a full DNA profile. But after day one of testing, day four of
testing, and even
after day seven of testing, we still got full DNA profiles off of the bone that
was exposed to the
sun and the rain. And if you look at the quants from the conventional DNA
results, you can see the
amount of DNA on there was actually quite high. So the bone that was exposed to
the sun and the
rain did not have that level of degradation occurring on it. And therefore,
even after seven days,
we were able to get full DNA profiles using both conventional and rapid hit ID.
This is going to
be really important. And honestly, I think we could have pushed this for a long
period of time,
way beyond seven days. I think it'd be good to keep pushing it until we get to
a point where it's
no longer giving results to see how long we can actually get results that even
though in a Florida,
as you know, it gets really hot, very humid, and it even rains usually in some
analeana daily basis,
the bone actually did not degrade to a point at which the rapid ID would become
ineffective.
So with this, we're definitely able to make comparisons up to day seven.
So based on our recommendation, if you have something submerged in fresh water,
it may not be suitable
for rapid ID, but you can still process it using conventional DNA methods up to
seven days,
possibly even longer than seven days. Obviously, we stopped the seven day mark,
but we could have
probably pushed it to longer. Exposed to sun and rain, in least in Florida, was
suitable for both
rapid ID and conventional DNA processing up to seven days. What we'd like to do
future for these
bones is we would like to do buried in dirt, submerged in salt water, see if
that speeds up the
degradation, slows it down, exposed to extreme heat or if it gets burned, and
they just really decay
at room temperature. So for example, if skeletal remains were found in that
household, you know,
could you go ahead and sample those with a rapid ID as opposed to taking it
back to the laboratory?
So one of the other studies we did, so a lot of what we focused on at here at
the NFSCC,
was the ability to take the same swab and run it on both the rapid ID and then
take it and run
it using conventional methods. But there is one bit of a problem with that. For
example,
if you have the instrument at a crime scene and you decide to run the sample
there,
or let's take at a natural disaster or a disaster at some point and you're
running the sample there
and then you want to take it out and run it basically conventionally, then you
have to transport it
to the laboratory. Well, the only issue with that is you should take it out,
you should air dry it
before you package it. Obviously, if you do not have a proper lab set up, if
you do not have hoods,
that may not be the best idea for you to actually have it exposed to the
environment because now
you're risking contamination or actually loss of sample, something falls or
gets lost.
So what we did is we wanted to know if after you ran the sample in the rapid ID
in that sample
cartridge, could you just leave it there up to at least 24 hours and then take
it back to the
laboratory and process it using conventional DNA methods. That way we figured
24 hours was
going to be a good enough time to make sure that you could get it back to a lab
after running it.
And then at the lab, it could be air dried or whatever until they decided to
run it using
conventional methods. So that's what we did. We did an experiment where we left
the swabs in the
cartridge, sealed in the cartridge closed for 24 hours before we ran it
conventionally.
So what we did is we had four different volumes of blood that we used. We had
10 micro
set two was dried after staying in the sample cartridge for 24 hours after it
was processed
under rapid ID. So this set two was basically designed to mimic the process of
I've run a sample on
scene and now I am in 24 hours time, I'm going to get it back to the laboratory
so that they can
process it using conventional methods. And then with set three, we just took it
straight to
conventional methods just to do a kind of comparison to see the DNA that we
were actually still
getting off the swab compared to the DNA that was originally on there. So here
's an example of the
quant results and what it is for basically set one, set two and set three. So
for set one and set
two, these are the quant results after it was run on the rapid ID and set three
was conventionally
only. So as you can see that the difference between the one that was air dried
and the one that was
left in the cartridge, not much of a difference. There was not a significant
loss in DNA. I mean,
for the 10 microliters, you went from 1.05 nanograms from microliter to 0.92
nanograms from microliter.
Even at the lowest end at the one microliter of blood dried immediately, it was
0.3 nanograms
from microliter, whereas the one microliter in the cartridge was 0.15. So
slightly more.
Of course, the set three that was unconventional for the most part gave better
results. I mean,
the 10 microliters is about this a little lower, but they're all within a
margin of error. So,
as you can see, transporting it in the cartridge actually does not make that
much of a difference.
What we'd like to do for future studies on this topic is we would like to use
other body fluids,
perhaps do saliva. We would also like to do more crime scene type samples. For
example,
we've already done testing on cigarette butts gum, you know, maybe doing dried
blood instead of
liquid blood, dried saliva, and touch DNA samples. So let's go try to get more
into the
more crime scene type samples, run them on the rapid ID, take them out, leave
them in the cartridge
for at least 24 hours, and then run it conventionally. And also, we would
probably want to push
longer than 24 hours. Like, at what point are we seeing that there's such a
different result
that we're no longer getting great results? So we can actually then propose a
limit as to how long
you should go before you do not let it stay in that cartridge any longer.
So I just want to thank everybody, thank Thermo Fisher Scientific, because, you
know,
this is all through the partnership, we're able to do this with them, and, you
know, we enjoy doing
testing for them, and we're always looking for suggestions. So we're always
hoping that people
will reach out to us as the rapid DNA center of excellence and says, "I am
wondering about this
type of sample. I'm wondering about this type of sample exposed to these
conditions,
because then we can look into designing testing to answer those questions for
you."
Thanks, so I hope everybody has a good day, and I'll be free to take any
questions.
Thank you, Director Garvey and Rob, for that great information insight. Aud
ience, while we get
ready for the Q&A, which you can go ahead and submit a question for at this
time, if you have
not already, why don't we move on to a few polling questions? All right, on
your screen,
you will see the first polling question. When do you think your agency or
jurisdiction will start
using rapid DNA? This year, next year, in three to five years, in six plus
years, or never?
All right, it looks like the majority of you are going to be using it in three
to five years,
which is really exciting. All right, jump to our next one.
Which of the following is your agency considering using rapid DNA for?
Investigative leads, disaster victim ID, coded-hit confirmation,
reference sample processing, or booking station arrestee samples, or other? We
'll give you a
minute to answer that. About 50% say investigative leads, followed by 20% with
the reference sample
processing. All right, last question that we'll ask you before we get to the Q&
A.
Would you like to receive more information on today's webinar topics?
Go ahead and take a second to answer that before we get our panelists back in
here.
All right, thank you so much for your participation in that. Now, we have a few
minutes to go ahead
and do some questions. So, Director Garvey, we're going to start with you.
Good morning. Our first question, have you been able to introduce the rapid DNA
system into
court and have it accepted? So, great question because obviously that's one.
That's everyone is
very interested in how will this wind up working when it finally has to go to
court. So, we currently
have not had a case in which we've used it that has come to trial. What we see
is with many of the
cases that we work. When we are creating a lead, it will often lead to someone
taking a plea,
or it winds up not having to go to trial because we've been able to say, hey,
this person was
actually not the person. Now, with all of that said, we also run for our crime
scene samples.
We run the primary sample after the leads back in the crime lab also. So, one
of the things people
need to look at when they're thinking about court is again getting back to that
partnership
with a crime lab who is going to be actually 1-2 testify in court. Now, the
real answer that
everyone wants to know is has it been used at all in court? And there are
certain cases. There's one
in California, one in I believe Arizona, and there's a couple more coming up.
So, as more people use it,
we are going to see it used in court more often.
Oh, perfect. Thank you. That was a great comprehensive answer.
We got another one for you while we have you. So, when you ask for consent from
the suspect,
for their swab to be used in a local DNA database, do you make it clear on the
consent form that
their profile may be shared with other similar agencies outside of your police
department?
Great question again. Anyone who's going to be doing voluntary consent forms
need to make sure
your form covers actually probably two or maybe three critical topic areas. One
that it's completely voluntary. The person knows they are giving it and it's
voluntary.
Two, that you are telling them how it will be used. It obviously will be used
for the current case,
but will be used to search other sources. So, we clearly say that it will be
used to search
other sources. And then three, we also clearly tell them that at any time
voluntary consent,
they can change their mind. And if they change their mind, this is how to
contact us and we will
remove the profile. Okay, gotcha. Now, a really quick follow-up question to
that. Do you find
suspects refusing to sign the consent form a law? No, I think most of the time
people that
are basically given the choice to give a consent, most actually do. It's sort
of an odd thing
where you would go, well, why? But most people are actually doing it. So, yeah.
All right, interesting. I mean, I worked for you guys, so. All right, now Rob,
let's get you in
here. We have a few questions for you next. Rob, can you talk about the process
of running
samples? Is there any pre-processing or pretreatment required with the rapid
hit ID?
So, there really isn't much pre-processing or pretreatment. The samples for the
most
thought were treated no differently than if you were taking a swab to run using
conventional
DNA methods. So, things like swabbing soda cans or swabbing blood samples, no
different than using
a sterile swab with sterile water, swabbing it and then placing it directly
into the rapid ID
cartridge and then into the instrument. The bone was more of a field-based
method, which is basically
we drilled into the bone. We had a pet tradition underneath it to collect the
shivings and then
we put that straight into the cartridge and straight into the instrument also.
Any cuttings of cloth
with blood, we do about a five millimeter square cutting so that it can fit
into the cartridge
properly because obviously you don't want too big of a cutting because it could
clog up the cartridge.
So, we do about a five millimeter square cutting. We have worked with Thermof
isher to develop a
job aid, something that can be used to process samples. It's for the field or
in the lab,
specifically for the rapid ID. So, I know that that is something that could be
made available
in an electronic format for people if they want to see some of how we suggest
best methods to
prepare samples. Gotcha. Okay. When you were talking earlier in your
presentation,
you mentioned the samples being transported in the cartridge for 24 hours. Were
they kept at room
temperature? Yes. So, they were just kept at room temperature. We didn't
actually drive them
around for 24 hours, but they were kept at room temperature. The idea was just
no refrigeration.
We're just thinking of taking him from a scene and to the laboratory just like
you would do all
your regular evidence that you would transport from a crime scene to a
laboratory to process.
So, yeah, they were just kept at room temperature in the cartridge.
Perfect. Absolutely. That makes it much easier. And another one for you, Rob.
As we see the use of
next generation sequencing, increasing more and more, do you think it will be
more beneficial than
SPR profiling in these forensic cases? For what I'm not a next generation
sequencing expert,
but from what I know of it, it does take a little bit longer to process samples
using
next generation sequencing, even though you do get a lot more data. So, I guess
for me, I think
it may become more useful in the future, but I think for the majority of crimes
we may still be solving with SPRs and also possibly with rapid DNA as it
becomes more accepted into
the forensic community and the law enforcement community. I believe that more
crimes may actually
process B, process using SPRs with rapid DNA and maybe the more difficult, more
complicated crimes
where more information is needed, then I can see next generation sequencing
definitely being used
there. But that's just my opinion. I'm not an expert in next generation
sequencing.
All right. Thank you, Rob. Ryan, let's go ahead and get you involved in this.
We have a couple
questions for you. Ryan, how do you proficiency test those that are collecting
the evidence?
Thanks. So, the proficiency test is much like is done with normal proficiency
tests. They process
the samples, reference samples, or whatever it might be through the rapid, and
they do that
on a regular schedule. And they report the results through the normal means. So
it's just we really just integrate into our normal processing that they have to
use the rapid
as part of the proficiency testing schedule. Okay. Now, would a person using
the system need to be
qualified or certified in order to submit the samples? The samples are really
just collected
as they are normally. So, the same as any other samples are collected. So,
there's really no
testing of them or a qualification of them, other than initial training on how
to collect
evidence samples in terms of our detectives in the field. We go out and we
train our detectives
in the field on how to collect evidence samples, whether it be from a crime
scene or an item of
evidence that might be for touch DNA. So, other than that training, there's no
formal qualification.
Gotcha. Perfect. Thank you, Ryan. We have another question for Rob here. So, we
'll get you back
into the fold. Talking about the submerged bone data, have you run those
samples on the mini filer?
So, what was the profile like below 200B? So, we did not run a mini filer just
to know that using
traditional DNA methods. I may be, I'm not sure if it was clear in the slide.
We did get a full profile
with Global Filer using conventional DNA methods all the way up after seven
days. So, we never had
any issue with Global Filer. And I found a lot of labs have gone away from mini
filer because they
see how Global Filer, how great Global Filer works. So, we don't have mini fil
er. We have not
run it on mini filer, but Global Filer actually we got a full profile after
seven days being
submerged in the water. It was with a rapid ID is where we weren't getting
great data. But with
conventional DNA methods using the PrEPFiler BTA Express Kit and Global Filer
for amplification
and the 3500, we were able to get full DNA profile. Awesome. Thank you for that
information, Rob.
And unfortunately, audience, that's about all the time we have for the Q and A
today. But we would
like to thank our fantastic presenters, Dr. Garvey, Rob, and Ryan all for
joining us today,
as well as Thermo Fisher Scientific, the sponsor for today's webinar. In about
24 hours or less,
this webinar will be available on demand if you would like to watch it again or
share it with
friends and colleagues. Additionally, you will receive an email with
information on how to obtain
CE credit documentation for your participation today. The fourth webinar in the
2021 Future Trends
and Forensic DNA Technology will be held October 7th at 8am Pacific 11am
Eastern. You will be able
to register for that webinar on the forensic website, www.forembicmag.com. And
there you will
also be able to view other webinars in this series from the 2021 version and
the 2022 versions
on demand. Thank you so much to everybody today and we hope you have a
wonderful rest of your day.
[BLANK_AUDIO]