U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Effects of Presumptive Test Reagents on the Ability to Obtain Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RPLF) Patterns from Human Blood and Semen Stains

NCJ Number
130197
Journal
Journal of Forensic Sciences Volume: 36 Issue: 3 Dated: (May 1991) Pages: 656-661
Author(s)
M N Hochmeister; B Budowle; F S Baechtel
Date Published
1991
Length
6 pages
Annotation
The potential effects of presumptive test reagents on the recovery of DNA from evidentiary blood and semen samples was investigated, particularly for restriction fragment length polymorphism (RPLF) analysis of body fluid stains.
Abstract
Two-hundred thirty-five sample stains were processed. Blood stains on cotton and glass were exposed directly to luminol, benzidine, phenolphthalein, o-tolidine, and leucomalachite green, while semen stains and vaginal swabs containing semen were exposed directly to bromocloroindolyl phosphate (BCIP) and sodium thymolphthalein monophosphate (STMP) reagents. High molecular DNA was detectable under ultraviolet light in 1 percent agarose gels containing ethidium bromide from stains exposed to luminol, benzidine dissolved in ethanol, and phenolphthalein as well as semen stains and vaginal swabs exposed to BCIP and STMP. These test reagents did not appear to affect the qualitative and quantitative recovery of high molecular DNA with the exception of phenolphthalein treated stains which yielded a lower recovery. In all cases with detectable high molecular DNA, the RLFP patterns were identical to those of the untreated control samples. These results demonstrate that evidentiary body fluid stains contaminated with these reagents can be successfully typed by RFLP procedures. However, bloodstains exposed to benzidene dissolved in glacial acetic acid, leucomalachite green, and o-tolidine did not produce detectable DNA on the test gel and did not produce any RPLF patterns. 2 figures and 9 references (Author abstract modified)