Elsevier

Forensic Science International

Volume 294, January 2019, Pages 140-149
Forensic Science International

Assessment of the potential investigative value of a decentralised rapid DNA workflow for reference DNA samples

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.11.015Get rights and content

Highlights

  • An assessment was performed of a rapid DNA workflow in Australia for reference DNA samples.

  • Samples were tracked from collection through to reporting.

  • A rapid DNA workflow was demonstrated to have potential investigative value for 0.6% of cases.

  • This equates to approximately 480 people per year across Australia being remanded in custody.

  • Rapid DNA technology consumable costs are approximately five times that of laboratory processing.

Abstract

Rapid DNA technology has the ability to provide DNA analysis results in real-time. The purpose of this study was to assess the potential investigative value that could be gained by using a rapid DNA workflow in Australia, for reference DNA samples. A survey of police charging stations and DNA analysis laboratories in five Australian jurisdictions identified that a rapid DNA analysis workflow could have impacted the decision to release a person of interest from custody in 0.6% cases. This equates to approximately 480 people per year across Australia who could be held in custody because of DNA results obtained in real time. The survey also identified the extent of a sample backlog in one jurisdiction and highlighted practices in place which limited the number of reference DNA samples collected, thereby reducing the potential impact of the DNA database. It is anticipated that while the cost of rapid DNA technology remains significantly greater than current laboratory processing, the uptake of the technology in Australia will be limited. However, as costs reduce, rapid DNA instruments could potentially become a viable option for the future of forensic science in Australia.

Introduction

The development of rapid DNA technology has been of significant interest to the international forensic science community for a number of years [1], [2], [3], [4]. Rapid DNA instruments offer the potential for the rapid analysis of DNA samples, returning intelligence information regarding links between offenders and crimes in virtual real-time [5], [6]. These instruments combine the multiple processes involved in DNA analysis into one instrument, with a ‘sample in to result out’ approach and are designed to be relatively small, possibly portable and potentially used by non-scientific personnel [7], [8].

There are a number of commercially available instruments that have been validated [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] and tested on various sample types [17]. The potential applications of this technology include within the laboratory [18], at the crime scene [17], [19] and at the police station [20]. The main commercially available instruments that have been implemented into DNA analysis workflows are the DNAscan/ANDE™ Rapid DNA Analysis™ System [9], [10], RapidHIT® 200 by IntegenX® [11], [12], [13] and the RapidHIT® ID, also developed by IntegenX® [14], [15], [16]. The RapidHIT® ID in particular has been designed to be housed in a decentralised model, such as police charging stations remote to a forensic facility, and is able to process reference DNA samples from persons of interest with direct upload to a DNA database, in as little as 90 min with minimal hands on time [14], [15], [16]. The term police charging stations is intended to refer to the location at which a person of interest is interviewed by police and a reference DNA sample is collected.

These rapid DNA instruments have the potential to provide intelligence information, in the form of DNA links to unsolved and previously unrelated matters, while a person is still in a police charging station [10], [20]. This information could impact decisions relating to whether the person is released from custody, as well as whether bail conditions should apply. By obtaining information regarding the linked criminal activity of an individual held at a police station via a rapid DNA process, possible future criminal acts can be disrupted. The rapid DNA process also has other advantages such as eliminating the need to transport reference DNA samples to a laboratory and significantly reducing the time taken to obtain a DNA profile.

Whilst the rapid DNA instruments have been extensively validated and assessed, and have demonstrated an equivalent level of sensitivity and accuracy to standard laboratory processing [7], [13], [21], the actual workflow has not been assessed in Australia. It has previously been identified that a number of considerations would need to be addressed for the introduction of rapid DNA instruments into police stations, such as legislation, policy, infrastructure requirements, equipment maintenance, networking, data security, accreditation and training [20]. However, the potential impact on investigations resulting from the introduction of a rapid DNA workflow using rapid DNA instruments in police charging remains unknown.

Jurisdictions in Australia and New Zealand refer to DNA links from DNA databases as either ‘cold’ where the link between the person and the crime was unknown to police, or ‘warm’ where the crime is actively being investigated and the police already have a suspicion that the suspect is linked to the crime through other evidence. It is proposed that obtaining a DNA profile link between a suspect and a crime would only influence a decision to retain a person in custody if the link was cold and of a significant nature (serious crime, or a significant number of minor crimes). A person brought into a police station as a suspect in a serious matter (e.g. murder) would likely be retained in custody in an effort to safeguard society from the individual perpetrating more offences, regardless of the DNA evidence available. Therefore, it would likely be of reduced importance if the DNA profile link information is received within two hours or two weeks. However, if an individual is brought into a police station for a minor matter, but a cold link to a serious matter is obtained, it could influence the decision to retain the person in custody; either from a community safety perspective or in order to ensure that police do not have to apprehend the person of interest again at a later date. Given that it is anticipated that this is where a rapid DNA workflow for reference DNA samples could have the most significant impact, these assertions form the basis of the workflow assessed.

In the United States the Rapid DNA Act (Public Law 115-50) was signed into law on 18 August 2017 [22]. The Act defines a rapid DNA instrument, increases the category of agencies that can submit DNA profiles to the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) and tasks the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to develop standards and procedures to utilise the rapid technology to generate a DNA profile and search it against CODIS. CODIS is the DNA database used in the United States [23]. Currently, standards and procedures are in development by the FBI and no rapid DNA instruments have been approved for use within a law enforcement booking station by the National DNA Index System [23]. As of 1 June 2018, the ANDE 6C Rapid DNA System has been approved for upload to CODIS from an accredited laboratory [23]. However, rapid DNA systems are in use in multiple police agencies throughout the United States including Palm Bay and Miami Beach in Florida, Tucson in Arizona, Richland County in South Carolina, as well as Cumberland County and Bucks County in Pennsylvania [15], [24], [25], [26], [27]. Other countries such as the United Kingdom have also introduced the technology [15], [28].

It should also be noted that a cost benefit analysis of this workflow has not yet been performed and it is anticipated that by undertaking such studies, forensic science agency managers will be better informed in relation to the impact and benefits of a rapid DNA workflow, when considering whether the adoption of this technology is appropriate.

Section snippets

Materials and methods

A virtual assessment of the collection, analysis and potential investigative value of reference DNA samples was conducted using survey instruments to assess the impact of the introduction of a rapid DNA workflow. The surveys were modelled on the reference DNA sample workflow detailed in Fig. 1. This workflow was developed to account for sample processing differences across the five participating Australian jurisdictions.

Surveys were completed by nominated agency representatives (including

Results

A total of 455 reference DNA samples were collected across the ten police charging stations during the two-month survey period. Based on the returned survey responses, it was found that the busiest station was in Jurisdiction A and processed a total of 130 samples, while the quietest station was in Jurisdiction E and only processed a single reference DNA sample. While this gives an indication of sample throughput, it is dependent on a number of factors including the location and size of the

Discussion

While the number of samples collected during the two-month survey period provides an indication of sample collection rates, it should be noted that this data represents only two police charging stations within each jurisdiction. Also, while officers were requested to complete a survey for every reference DNA sample collected during the survey period, it is not known whether some were missed and/or not submitted. Initial conversations were held with police representatives ahead of sample

Conclusion

While there is no doubt that obtaining DNA results for reference DNA samples in real-time would be of benefit to law enforcement, this study demonstrates that routine laboratory DNA analysis meets the current needs for the majority of cases. Where a case would be affected, the impact would be large, in that policing resources could be saved by not having to apprehend offenders that had already been detained and crime rates could be reduced where recidivist offenders are remanded in custody. It

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the significant contribution of staff from the following organisations for their assistance in the data collection process: Australian Capital Territory Police, New South Wales Police, Queensland Police, Tasmania Police, Western Australia Police, Australian Federal Police Forensics, New South Wales Forensic and Analytical Science Service, Queensland Health Forensic and Scientific Services, Forensic Science Service Tasmania and the Forensic Biology

References (31)

  • Z. Thong et al.

    Evaluation of the RapidHIT™ 200 System: a comparative study of its performance with Maxwell® DNA IQ™/Identifiler® Plus/ABI 3500L workflow

    Forensic Sci. Int.: Genet.

    (2015)
  • N. Dawnay et al.

    Developmental validation of the ParaDNA® Screening System—a presumptive test for the detection of DNA on forensic evidence items

    Forensic Sci. Int.: Genet.

    (2014)
  • M. Holland et al.

    Evaluation of the RapidHIT™ 200, an automated human identification system for STR analysis of single source samples

    Forensic Sci. Int.: Genet.

    (2015)
  • J.A. Lounsbury et al.

    Sample-to-result STR genotyping systems: potential and status

    Forensic Sci. Rev.

    (2012)
  • L. Roewer

    DNA fingerprinting in forensics: past, present, future

    Invest. Genet.

    (2013)
  • Cited by (10)

    • Recent advances in forensic biology and forensic DNA typing: INTERPOL review 2019–2022

      2023, Forensic Science International: Synergy
      Citation Excerpt :

      The authors note that for such an approach to be successful “knowledge on DNA success rates [with various evidence types] is necessary in making evidence-based decisions for Rapid DNA analysis” [60]. A group in Australia performed a cost-benefit analysis of a decentralized rapid DNA workflow that might exist in the future with instruments placed at police stations around their country [61]. A virtual assessment considered all reference DNA samples collected during a two-month time period at 10 participating police stations in five regions of Australia.

    • Rapid DNA from a disaster victim identification perspective: Is it a game changer?

      2022, Forensic Science International: Genetics
      Citation Excerpt :

      When considered purely on reagent and consumable cost, Rapid DNA is more expensive than DNA profiling in a laboratory. As an example, on average within Australian forensic laboratories it costs less than $25USD to generate a profile for a single sample [81], whereas the consumable cost of RapidHIT™ ID (according to ThermoFisher Scientific list prices for sample and primary cartridge [100,101]) is approximately $200USD. If a DVI occurred in an area with a nearby forensic laboratory and that laboratory wasn’t rendered inoperable by the disaster, it would be difficult to justify the additional costs associated with using Rapid DNA.

    • Interpol review of forensic biology and forensic DNA typing 2016-2019

      2020, Forensic Science International: Synergy
      Citation Excerpt :

      These instruments are capable of being deployed at police booking stations, border crossings, and embassies as well as in traditional forensic laboratories. Several publications have examined the cost of decentralized or mobile rapid DNA operations [4–6]. The Rapid DNA Act of 2017 was signed into U.S. law on August 18, 2017 [7].

    • DNA Sequencing and Rapid DNA Tests

      2023, Modern Forensic Tools and Devices: Trends in Criminal Investigation
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text