1230-7483

Enhancing forensic DNA quality: a comprehensive review of the integrated ISO centric standards from the crime scene to the courtroom

Poprawa jakości DNA w kryminalistyce. Kompleksowy przegląd zintegrowanych norm ISO – od miejsca przestępstwa do sali sądowej

Joseph

Aby

author Rao

Istkhar

author Singh

Nrashant

author

Banasthali Vidyapith

Amity University

02exxtn84

Correspondence to: Aby Joseph ajoseph@amityuniversity.ae Correspondence to: Istkhar Rao Correspondence to: Nrashant Singh

07 04 2025

140 2024 281 292

2025

Forensic DNA evidence is essential in criminal investigations; however, its interpretation is often complicated by contamination and the presence of multiple DNA profiles in a single sample. Although many laboratories follow stringent quality control and ISO 17025 standards, the pre-analytical stage, including crime scene and medical sample collection phases, lacks rigorous quality management protocols, increasing the integrity of DNA sampling and evidence handling. The UK’s Forensic Science Regulator (FSR) enforces a framework based on various ISO standards to enhance DNA evidence quality throughout its lifecycle and pre-analytical, analytical, and post-analytical phases. Key standards include ISO 17020 for crime-scene units, ISO 15189 for medical examination centers, ISO 17025 for forensic DNA labs, and ISO 18385 for forensic-grade consumables. This comprehensive approach aimed to mitigate contamination risks and ensure the reliability of forensic DNA evidence from collection to court presentation, thereby strengthening the criminal justice system and maintaining public confidence in forensic science.

1. Panneerchelvam S, Mohd Nor N. DNA profiling in human identification: from past to present. Malays J Med Sci. 2023;30:5-21. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10793127/

2. Bieber FR, Budowle B, Coble MD, Buckleton JS, Butler JM. Evaluation of forensic DNA mixture evidence: protocol for evaluation, interpretation, and statistical calculations using the combined probability of inclusion. BMC Genet. 2016;17(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12863-016-0429-7

3. Neuhuber F, Kreindl G, Kastinger T, Dunkelmann B, Zahrer W, Cemper-Kiesslich J, et al. Police officer’s DNA on crime scene samples – indirect transfer as a source of contamination and its database-assisted detection in Austria. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser. 2017;6:e608-e609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2017.11.001

4. Fonneløp AE, Johannessen H, Egeland T, Gill P. Contamination during criminal investigation: detecting police contamination and secondary DNA transfer from evidence bags. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2016;23:121-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2016.04.003

5. Szkuta B, Harvey ML, Ballantyne KN, Van Oorschot RAH. DNA transfer by examination tools – a risk for forensic casework? Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2015;16:246-254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2015.02.004

6. Pickrahn I, Kreindl G, Müller E, Dunkelmann B, Zahrer W, Cemper-Kiesslich J, et al. Contamination incidents in the pre-analytical phase of forensic DNA analysis in Austria – statistics of 17 years. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2017;31:12-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2017.07.012

7. Smith PA, Jetten K, Lovell C. Set up to ‘fail’? Implementing contamination minimisation procedures and environmental monitoring in a Sexual Assault Referral Centre. J Forensic Leg Med. 2022;90:102377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2022.102377

8. Basset P, Castella V. Positive impact of DNA contamination minimization procedures taken within the laboratory. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2018;38:232-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.11.013

9. Bini C, Pelotti S, Fais P, Pelletti G, Giorgetti A, Giovannini E. Human DNA contamination of postmortem examination facilities: impact of COVID-19 cleaning procedure. J Forensic Sci. 2022;67(5):1867-1875. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.15096

10. Ansell R, Widén C. Swedish legislation regarding forensic DNA elimination databases. Forensic Sci Policy Manag. 2016;7(1-2):30-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/19409044.2015.1099061

11. Chang M. The U.S. and Italian criminal justice system: through the lens of the Amanda Knox trial. SSRN Electronic Journal. 2019. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3397975

12. Smith PA. When DNA implicates the innocent. Scientific American. 2016;314(6):11-12. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0616-11

13. Al-Snan NR, Alraimi NM. Comparison between various DNA sterilization procedures applied in forensic analysis. Egypt J Forensic Sci. 2022;12(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41935-022-00265-7

14. Kloosterman A, Sjerps M, Quak A. Error rates in forensic DNA analysis: definition, numbers, impact and communication. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2014;12:77-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.04.014

15. Henry J, Mcgowan P, Brown C. A survey of environmental DNA in South Australia Police facilities. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser. 2015;5:e465-e466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2015.09.184

16. Bonsu DNO, Simon C, Higgins D, Henry JM, Austin JJ. Metal-DNA interactions: exploring the impact of metal ions on key stages of forensic DNA analysis. Electrophoresis. 2023;45(9-10):779-793. https://doi.org/10.1002/elps.202300070

17. Bieber FR, Budowle B, Coble MD, Buckleton JS, Butler JM. Evaluation of forensic DNA mixture evidence: protocol for evaluation, interpretation, and statistical calculations using the combined probability of inclusion. BMC Genet. 2016;17(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12863-016-0429-7

18. Barrio P, Inglés V, González R, Sala A, Posada Y, Luque G M, et al. GHEP-ISFG collaborative exercise on mixture profiles (GHEP-MIX06). Reporting conclusions: results and evaluation. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2018;35:156-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.05.005

19. Dror IE, Hampikian G. Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Sci Justice. 2011;51(4):204-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004

20. Butler JM. History of DNA Advisory Boards. In: Houck MM, editor. Encyclopedia of forensic sciences. Academic Press; 2013. p. 157-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-823677-2.00309-3

21. Decorte R. Accreditation in forensic DNA analysis. In: Houck MM, editor. Encyclopedia of forensic sciences. Academic Press; 2013. p. 227-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-382165-2.00041-6

22. Gettings KB, Hares DR, Irwin J, Hoogenboom J, Ballard D, Børsting C, et al. Recommendations of the DNA Commission of the International Society for Forensic Genetics (ISFG) on short tandem repeat sequence nomenclature. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2023;68:102946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2023.102946

23. Coble MD, Buckleton J, Butler JM, Egeland T, Fimmers R, Gill P, et al. DNA Commission of the International Society for Forensic Genetics: recommendations on the validation of software programs performing biostatistical calculations for forensic genetics applications. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2016;25:191-197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2016.09.002

24. Wilson L. Combined DNA Index System: CODIS. In: Houck MM, editor. Encyclopedia of forensic sciences. Academic Press; 2013. p. 596-604. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-823677-2.00209-9

25. Nsiah Amoako E. The role and function of the Forensic Science Regulator in the UK. In: Payne-James J, Byard RW, editors. Encyclopedia of legal medicine. Elsevier; 2025. p. 648-654. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-443-21441-7.00234-x

26. Nsiah Amoako E, Mccartney C. The UK forensic science regulator: fit for purpose? WIREs Forensic Sci. 2021;3(6). https://doi.org/10.1002/wfs2.1415

27. Nsiah Amoako E, Mccartney C. Swapping carrots for sticks: forensic science provider views of the Forensic Regulator Act 2021. Sci Justice. 2022;62(5):506-514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2022.07.010

28. Mallinder B, Pope S, Thomson J, Beck L-A, Mcdonald A, Ramsbottom D, et al. Interpretation and reporting of mixed DNA profiles by seven forensic laboratories in the UK and Ireland. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2022;58:102674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2022.102674

29. Forensic Science Regulator. Code of Practice. London: Home Office; 2023 [cited 2024 Nov 5]. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64da431cc8dee4000d7f1c1e/FINAL_2023.1.18_Code_of_Practice.pdf

30. Forensic Science Regulator (FSR). DNA contamination controls: laboratory. Birmingham: FSR; 2023 [cited 2024 Nov 5]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dna-contamination-controls-laboratory/dna-contamination-controls-laboratory-accessible

31. Rover T, Borges R, Silva DA, Carvalho EF. Profile mapping DNA laboratories overlooking the forensic field and use of quality systems. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser. 2015;5:e409-e411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2015.09.162

32. International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC). ILAC G19:06/2022 Modules in a Forensic Science Process. Sydney: ILAC; 2022 [cited 2024 Nov 5]. Available from: https://ilac.org/publications-and-resources/ilac-guidance-series/

33. Forensic Science Regulator (FSR). Forensic science providers: validation. Birmingham: FSR; 2023 [cited 2024 Nov 5]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/forensic-science-providers-validation/forensic-science-providers-validation-accessible

34. Forensic Science Regulator (FSR). DNA mixture interpretation. Birmingham: FSR; 2023 [cited 2024 Nov 5]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dna-mixture-interpretation-fsr-g-222

35. Forensic Science Regulator (FSR). Proficiency testing guidance: DNA mixture analysis and interpretation. London: GO V.UK; 2023 [cited 2024 Nov 5]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proficiency-testing-guidance-dna-mixture-analysis-and-interpretation

36. Forensic Science Regulator. Contamination controls: scene of crime. London: Home Office; 2023 [cited 2024 Nov 5]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/crime-scene-dna-anti-contamination-guidance/contamination-controls-scene-of-crime-accessible

37. Jones NS, Forry EP. Demystifying accreditation: a framework for accreditation of forensic units. National Institute of Standards and Technology; 2023. https://doi.org/10.6028/nist.gcr.23-043

38. Neuteboom W, Ross A, Bugeja L, Willis S, Roux C, Lothridge K. Quality management in forensic science: a closer inspection. Forensic Sci Int. 2023;358:111779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2023.111779

39. Forensic Science Regulator. DNA contamination controls: forensic medical examinations. London: Home Office; 2023 [cited 2024 Nov 5]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dna-contamination-controls-forensic-medical-examinations/dna-contamination-controls-forensic-medical-examinations-accessible

40. Plebani M, Sciacovelli L. ISO 15189 Accreditation: navigation between quality management and patient safety. J Med Biochem. 2017;36(3):225-230. https://doi.org/10.1515/jomb-2017-0038

41. British Standards Institution (BSI). PAS 377:2023 Consumables used in the collection, preservation and processing of material for forensic analysis. London: BSI; 2023 [cited 2024 Nov 5]. Available from: https://www.bsigroup.com/siteassets/pdf/en/insights-and-media/insights/brochures/pas_377.pdf