Authors : Deepika Sharma; Amaan Amir; Muskan Mishra; Saumya Tripathi

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 2 - February

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/5t5dxbtb

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/pkzs9wh7

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26feb829

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : The secondary transfer of touch DNA has become a significant issue in contemporary forensic science due to advances in DNA profiling methods. Touch DNA involves genetic material left behind through the shedding of epithelial cells during physical contact, allowing for the extraction of DNA profiles from very small biological samples. In the past, finding an individual’s DNA on an object was seen as proof of direct interaction; however, recent studies have revealed that DNA can also be transferred indirectly via intermediary people or objects. This occurrence challenges the traditional understanding of DNA evidence and prompts crucial inquiries about the connection between DNA detection and actual participation in a criminal act. This review highlights the current knowledge regarding secondary transfer mechanisms, the various factors that affect its occurrence, and findings from experimental studies performed in both controlled and realistic settings. The variability linked to shedding ability, contact conditions, surface characteristics, and environmental influences underscores the unpredictable nature of indirect DNA transfer. Additionally, the review examines how secondary transfer impacts forensic interpretation, stressing the importance of shifting from a source-level to an activity-level assessment. Grasping the limitations and possible alternative transfer scenarios is crucial for precise evidence interpretation, effective courtroom communication, and the responsible use of touch DNA analysis in forensic practice.

Keywords : Touch DNA; Secondary Transfer, Forensic Interpretation, Activity-Level Evaluation,DNA Persistence, Low-Template DNA, Forensic Casework.

References :

1. Tozzo, P., Mazzobel, E., Marcante, B., Delicati, A., & Caenazzo, L. (2022). Touch DNA sampling methods: efficacy evaluation and systematic review. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 23(24), 15541.
2. Lowe, A., Murray, C., Whitaker, J., Tully, G., & Gill, P. (2002). The propensity of individuals to deposit DNA and secondary transfer of low level DNA from individuals to inert surfaces. Forensic Science International, 129(1), 25–34.
3. Amir, A., Sharma, D., Zeeshan, M., & Tripathi, S. (2025). Difference between Fingerprint Patterns among the South Indian and North Indian Population. Journal of Forensic Science and Research, 9(2), 210–215. https://doi.org/10.29328/journal.jfsr.1001105
4. Phipps, M., & Petricevic, S. (2007). The tendency of individuals to transfer DNA to handled items. Forensic Science International, 168(2–3), 162–168.
5. Goray, M., Mitchell, R. J., & van Oorschot, R. A. H. (2010). Secondary DNA transfer of biological substances under varying test conditions. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 4(2), 62–67.
6. Van Oorschot, R. A. H., Ballantyne, K. N., & Mitchell, R. J. (2010). Forensic trace DNA: A review. Investigative Genetics, 1(1), 14.
7. Meakin, G. E., & Jamieson, A. (2013). DNA transfer: Review and implications for casework. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 7(4), 434–443.
8. Alketbi, S. K. (2018). The affecting factors of touch DNA. Journal of Forensic Research, 9(3), 1-4.
9. Alketbi, S. K., & Goodwin, W. (2025). Enhancing trace DNA recovery from disposable face masks: Insights from the COVID-19 era and beyond. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 139(4), 1529-1536.
10. Burrill, J., Daniel, B., & Frascione, N. (2019). A review of trace “Touch DNA” deposits: Variability factors and an exploration of cellular composition. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 39, 8-18.
11. Sessa, F., Salerno, M., Bertozzi, G., Messina, G., Ricci, P., Ledda, C., … & Pomara, C. (2019). Touch DNA: Impact of handling time on touch deposit and evaluation of different recovery techniques: An experimental study. Scientific reports, 9(1), 9542., F., Salerno, M., Bertozzi, G., Messina, G., Ricci, P., Ledda, C., ... & Pomara, C. (2019). Touch DNA: Impact of handling time on touch deposit and evaluation of different recovery techniques: An experimental study. Scientific reports, 9(1), 9542.
12. Bonsu, D. O. M., Higgins, D., & Austin, J. J. (2020). Forensic touch DNA recovery from metal surfaces–a review. Science & Justice, 60(3), 206-215.
13. Jansson, L., Swensson, M., Gifvars, E., Hedell, R., Forsberg, C., Ansell, R., & Hedman, J. (2022). Individual shedder status and the origin of touch DNA. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 56, 102626.
14. Daly, D. J., Murphy, C., & McDermott, S. D. (2012). The transfer of touch DNA from hands to glass, fabric and wood. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 6(1), 41-46.
15. Giovanelli, A., Grazinoli Garrido, R., Rocha, A., & Hessab, T. (2022). Touch DNA recovery from vehicle surfaces using different swabs. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 67(2), 707-711.