Current Challenges of DNA

fingerprinting
Introduction
DNA is chromosomes linearly ordered chemical structure. Two strands of genetic material are twisted around one
another to form a double helix. A series of bases make up each strand. Adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thiamine
are the four different types of bases, and they are all incredibly distinctive to each person just like their genuine
fingerprint. Adenine, a nitrogenous base, always binds to thymine with two hydrogen bonds, while cytosine, a
nitrogenous base, always attaches to guanine by three hydrogen bonds. As a result, DNA fingerprinting refers to
the individual DNA profiling of each person. With the exception of monozygotic twins, each human being's
uniqueness or individuality is determined by their DNA. One in 30 billion to 300 billion people, or half the world's
population, have a perfect similarity.
In genetics, a technique known as DNA fingerprinting, also known as DNA typing, DNA profiling,
genotyping, or identity testing, concurrently identifies a large number of minisatellites in the genome
to create a pattern exclusive to an individual; DNA fingerprint. Each person's DNA has roughly 0.1%
variations, but 99.9% of people have identical DNA because the DNA sequence is similar to a
fingerprint. DNA fingerprinting is used to identify inherited diseases, identify victims (by comparing
victim profiles with reference samples), perform paternity tests, genetically profile individuals within
a species, determine sex, track threatened species, and conserve biodiversity.
Background Fig: Illustration and steps of DNA Fingerprinting.

Alec Jeffreys, a British scientist, invented the approach in 1984 at Leicester University in the UK
after seeing that some highly variable DNA sequences, or "minisatellites," are repeated within genes
but do not affect the activities of the genes. According to Jeffreys, each person has a distinct pattern of
minisatellites (the only exceptions being multiple individuals from a single zygote, such as identical
twins). Since DNA fingerprinting technology was developed in 1985, it has been widely utilized as
evidence in legal proceedings to establish the individual's identity in both civil and criminal cases. In
1989, a parentage dispute in India was resolved for the first-time using DNA fingerprinting
technology. Since that time, a variety of criminal cases have employed DNA technology to establish
individual identities, as well as forensic identification of wildlife and cases involving paternity and
maternity disputes.

Possible samples for DNA analysis

Blood, saliva, vaginal fluid, semen, personal things including razors, toothpicks, bottles, cans and
glass, used cigarette butts, bite marks, bone teeth, hair, and clothing, as well as any form of biological
remnants, can all be used as samples for DNA typing. Although epithelial cells that are released from
the digestive tract during urination can be used to extract DNA, new investigations have revealed that
epithelial cells cannot be discharged in urination in health individuals. White blood cells, which have
nuclei, are being examined for DNA synthesis in blood. Despite having nuclei as well, red blood cells
lose their nuclei during maturation. In an inquiry, hair acts as evidence because hair follicles contain
cells. Our skin has a top layer of cells. The dead cells in this higher layer, which are keratinized and
swiftly shed from our bodies, serve as evidence at crime scenes.
Current challenges
Over the past three decades, the technology of DNA fingerprinting has advanced from early
investigations based on restriction fragment-length polymorphism (RFLP) to cutting-edge multiplex
profiling using Short Tandem Repeats (STR) and high-throughput automated robotic platforms. The
fundamental tenets of DNA profiling, which are still applicable to forensic cases, include the fact that
each person's genome is distinct, making it possible for the law to establish that person's identity, and
the fact that it is inherited from parents, making it possible to determine a person's lineage. The DNA
evidence was virtually uncontested in the legal system around the world in the early years after its
discovery. Yet later on, the scientific advantages of DNA profiling's "infallibility myth" were
successfully questioned and refuted.
Although DNA fingerprinting is a significant and potent tool for solving mysterious crimes like
murder and rape, there are some challenges with DNA profiling in forensic science that are difficult to
overcome and render the evidence worthless. It is evident that forensic laboratories have experienced
a number of issues. Many stopped believing in genetic hints of evidence as a result of these problems.
These problems make it difficult to accurately identify the victim and understand the complainant's
depression. Genetic typing has a number of problems, including sample degradation, improper
handling, hybridization and probing errors, privacy concerns, carelessness, inexperienced personnel,
database defaults, sample mixing and fragmentation, incorrect data entry, storage problems, miss-
matches, identical twins, and DNA obtained from crime scene. Corruption, falsification of data, and
sample labeling errors. Moreover, the inaccurate results are also the result of instrumental errors.
Several DNA polymerase enzymes, including Taq and Bio-X, are employed. Yet, each enzyme has a
delicate limit. In court proceedings, these problems may result in differences between the biological
and legal evidence. Major present-day difficulties regarding DNA fingerprinting are:

 Privacy issues

DNA analysis has a number of drawbacks, one of which is the possibility of privacy
infringement. A person's DNA contains a lot of information about his physical condition,
making it sensitive information that needs to be protected with care. Individuals may be
discriminated against based on their ethnic background and percentage. Individuals are
hesitant to submit their DNA samples to DNA databanks maintained by the police or other
organizations, such as forensic laboratories, because they don't want to disclose all of their
personal information to third parties due to privacy concerns. When a person's private genetic
information is shared with another person, it is against human rights.

 Environmental effect

The impression of DNA-typing has been significantly impacted by humidity, temperature,

bacterial contamination, moisture conditions, UV (ultraviolet) radiation, direct sunlight, and
dampness. Unfavorable circumstances, including a wet climate, lead to oxidative damage and
hydrolytic bond cleavage. Several kinds of environmental variables cause whole-genome
DNA nicking to occur.

 Lack of expertise

Throughout DNA analysis, numerous commercial organizations are involved. To handle

complex issues, these areas need experts. An expert witness may occasionally be a phony or
lack actual expertise in their profession. The outcome is poor if numerous technical
 arguments for evidence is provided in order to report it to someone who is not an expert in
the topic (such as a court).

 Low template DNA

DNA that is less than 200 picograms in quantity is low template DNA. It increases the
likelihood of contamination. Low template DNA defendants lack the skills necessary for a
reliable interpretation when they appear in court. Limited DNA is a threat, but experts are
aware of how to control it. With the aid of PCR technology, this issue can be solved by
amplifying a little amount of DNA into several copies in order to do DNA profiling.
Nevertheless, the chemicals that are utilized to extract DNA prevent successful DNA
amplification. Regrettably, good management is not always practiced. Low template DNA
also gives rise to low quality of DNA.

 False DNA markers

Sometimes synthetic or artificial DNA might cause problems due to incorrect interpretations.
These phony DNAs lead to inaccurate perceptions and serve as a barrier to believing in the
authenticity of DNA evidence. In a DNA fraud case, a Canadian doctor used his own body to
conceal false DNA evidence: John Schnee Berger had raped a patient in 1992 and left semen
at the crime scene that might be used as Genetic evidence. When police compared Schnee
Berger’s blood samples to semen from the crime scene throughout their investigation, the
findings came up completely different and never showed a match.

 Hacking

DNA profiles from past case suspects, offenders, and witnesses to crime scenes are collected
in the hacking DNA database. A database for unidentified people and human remains is also
available. There is no doubt that having DNA in a database is helpful, and many cold cases
can be solved with its assistance.

Conclusion
Although DNA evidence is a trustworthy and supportive tool for victim/crime inquiry,
numerous specialists have issued warnings due to the rarity of human error. Due to the
possibility of tampering with DNA evidence, it has had the incorrect results. Several
investigations have indicated that DNA analysis reports can differ in personal judgment and
are prone to error. Due to the burden of conviction based on report and the presence of a little
amount of DNA in biological evidence, bias may develop. The criminal justice system has
benefited greatly from forensic DNA fingerprinting, but its accuracy should not be taken for
granted. Every person has a unique signature left by God called DNA, which makes each
person unique. All across the world, DNA technology is now a crucial component of every
inquiry. With the motto "Do Not Ask, It's DNA, Stupid!" it has now gained widespread
acceptance in the resolution of numerous intriguing situations.
References

1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/dna-
fingerprinting
2. https://www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting
3. https://escientificpublishers.com/issues-with-dna-fingerprinting-in-
forensic-lab-a-review-JMRCR-01-0002
4. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/path.1711640203
5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejfs.2014.04.002
6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2017.10.005.
7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/
S0379073814002230?via%3Dihub
8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24967868/
9. https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/78613