DNA-Analysemethoden für präzisere Ermittlungen am Tatort | H2020
Methoden der DNA-Probenahme und -analyse gelten inzwischen als höchst zuverlässig. Eine große Hürde ist allerdings, dass standardmäßige ...
DNA-Profile
Eine große Hürde ist allerdings, dass standardmäßige forensische <anchor>DNA-Profile</anchor> auf komparativen Analysen beruhen. Dabei wird die DNA vom Tatort mit Referenzproben bekannter Verdächtiger oder mit allen Tätern in einer forensischen DNA-Datenbank abgeglichen.
DNA Profiling - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
DNA Profiling - an overview \| ScienceDirect Topics[Skip to Main content](#main_content "Skip to Main content")

[![Elsevier logo](https://sdfestaticassets-us-east-1.sciencedirectassets.com/shared-assets/24/images/elsevier-non-solus-new-grey.svg)ScienceDirect](/)

- [Journals & Books](/browse/journals-and-books)

- Help

- [Search](/search "Search")


[My account](/user/login?targetURL=%2Ftopics%2Fbiochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology%2Fdna-profiling&from=globalheader)

[Sign in](/user/institution/login?targetURL=%2Ftopics%2Fbiochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology%2Fdna-profiling)

# DNA Profiling

In subject area: [Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology](/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology)

DNA fingerprinting or profiling comprises any DNA-based techniques that identifies the DNA from a certain individual or group of individuals within a community of organisms.

From: [Introduction to Environmental Forensics (Second Edition), 2007](/science/article/pii/B9780123695222500166)

About this page

[Add to Mendeley](https://www.mendeley.com/reference-management/web-importer?utm_source=science_direct&utm_campaign=web_importer_cross_sell) Set alert

1. ## Featured on this page


## Featured on this page

- [Definition](#definition)
- [Chapters and Articles](#chapters-articles)
- [Related Terms](#related-terms)
- [Recommended Publications](#recommended-publications)
- [Featured Authors](#featured-authors)

## Contents

- [Definition](#definition)
- [Chapters and Articles](#chapters-articles)
- [Related Terms](#related-terms)
- [Recommended Publications](#recommended-publications)
- [Featured Authors](#featured-authors)

## Chapters and Articles

You might find these chapters and articles relevant to this topic.

## [Anthropology/Odontology](/science/article/pii/B9780123821652000076)

D. Franklin, M.K. Marks, in[Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences (Second Edition)](/referencework/9780123821669/encyclopedia-of-forensic-sciences), 2013

### Molecular – DNA

The development of DNA profiling technology has revolutionized forensic practice, and its applications are widespread and clearly cross-disciplinary. With respect to the identification of unknown human skeletal remains, DNA profiling is a core method of obtaining a positive identity, especially in the absence of antemortem dental and medical records. There are numerous other applications of DNA technology relevant to the forensic anthropologist, including sex estimation, ancestry informative markers, and familial relationships. It is also possible to distinguish human from nonhuman bone on the basis of DNA sequences. It is important to note that the feasibility of undertaking such analyses may be restricted in routine forensic anthropological casework given the expense, equipment, and expertise required, not to mention the destructive sampling technique. Regardless, it is possible to analyze DNA markers for species identification.

The species to which an unidentified bone sample belongs can be determined through the analysis of species-specific DNA sequences. Hence, by determining species origin, this technique provides insight beyond answering whether the remains are human or nonhuman. These distinctions may be crucial in cases involving poaching of endangered species or ritual animal sacrifice. In distinguishing human from nonhuman tissue, the analysis of mitochondrial DNA is generally preferred compared to examination of nucleic DNA. Mitochondrial DNA contains a high copy number within cells, so it is more likely to yield a useable profile from degraded bone.

To avoid contamination, a bone specimen for DNA analysis needs cleaning and decontamination. Several protocols are popular. After decontamination and preparation, the sample is drilled or sectioned, depending on the amount of destructive sampling allowed. The bone is then decalcified in an EDTA or Chelex® suspension and protein digestion is performed using extraction buffers. Following DNA extraction, PCR amplification, DNA sequencing, and analysis are performed. Human DNA is distinguished from nonhuman on the basis of species-specific base changes. If nonhuman animal species identification is sought, species-specific primers that only produce a PCR product with the animal species for which they are designed are commercially available. It is important to note that it may not be possible to extract and amplify DNA from highly degraded, burnt, and/or contaminated specimens and in these instances an immunological approach may be more feasible.

Read more

[View chapter](/science/article/pii/B9780123821652000076) [Explore book](/referencework/9780123821669)

[Read full chapter](/science/article/pii/B9780123821652000076)

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123821652000076

## [Current and emerging tools for the recovery of genetic information from post mortem samples: New directions for disaster victim identification](/science/article/pii/S1872497318301935)

J. Watherston, ... J. Ward, in[Forensic Science International: Genetics](/journal/forensic-science-international-genetics), 2018

### Abstract

DNA profiling has emerged as the gold standard for the identification of victims in mass disaster events providing an ability to identify victims, reassociate remains and provide investigative leads at a relatively low cost, and with a high degree of discrimination. For the majority of samples, DNA-based identification can be achieved in a fast, streamlined and high-throughput manner. However, a large number of remains will be extremely compromised, characteristic of mass disasters. Advances in technology and in the field of forensic biology have increased the options for the collection, sampling, preservation and processing of samples for DNA profiling. Furthermore, recent developments now allow a vast array of new genetic markers and genotyping techniques to extract as much genetic information from a sample as possible, ensuring that identification is not only accurate but also possible where material is degraded, or limited. Where historically DNA profiling has involved comparison with ante mortem samples or relatives, now DNA profiling can direct investigators towards putative victims or relatives, for comparison through the determination of externally visible characteristics, or biogeographical ancestry. This paper reviews the current and emerging tools available for maximising the recovery of genetic information from post mortem samples in a disaster victim identification context.

Read more

[View article](/science/article/pii/S1872497318301935)

[Read full article](/science/article/pii/S1872497318301935)

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1872497318301935

## [Omics Approaches in Forensic Biotechnology](/science/article/pii/B9780128046593000063)

Syed B. Nizami, ... Alvina Gul, in[Omics Technologies and Bio-Engineering](/book/9780128046593/omics-technologies-and-bio-engineering), 2018

### 6.4.2What is DNA Profiling?

DNA fingerprinting/profiling is a series of tests and techniques employed to evaluate and identify the genetic information contained within an individual’s cell and in forensics; it is defined as the comparison of genetic information of a person to evidence found at the scene of offence or crime. DNA is the chemical code, which is present in every living and dead cell of a person’s body. Factually, the DNA sequencing in almost all human beings is 99.9% the same. Variation is present in only 0.1% of the DNA sequence and only 0.1% is unique to every person. The odds of two people, who are not related by blood, having the exact same DNA fingerprint is about 1 in 594.1 trillion individuals.

However, the DNA analysis and profiling for an individual cannot be done without biological samples. When using this tool in forensic studies and sciences, these biological samples, or let us say biological evidence, for the purpose of DNA profiling, comprise saliva, blood, urine, skin, hair, and semen, keeping in mind that some may be better than the other, i.e., show better and more accurate results. Depending upon the purpose and area of investigation and study, there may be variation in the use of such samples evidences. Some techniques include blood typing, DNA profiling, gender determination through the analysis of chromosome, and lately, DNA phenotyping in forensics (Findlay et al., 1997).

Since the introduction of DNA profiling in the 1980s, it has been effectively employed in investigating criminal cases and has had many implications, for example, in the identification of disaster victim and testing to check the identity of person’s biological father, i.e., paternity testing (Findlay et al., 1997). Although this technique has numerous advantages, DNA profiling is not preferably used as the solitary method in criminal studies and investigations and must be done in combination with certain other evidences in the United Kingdom and other countries as well (Findlay et al., 1997).

DNA analysis/fingerprinting in forensics generally involves the following steps (Ley et al., 2012):

1.

Collection of evidence from the crime scene and from the suspect.

2.

Sample preparation from the collected sample.

3.

Extraction of genetic material (DNA) from the evidence obtained at the crime scene.

4.

Multiplication and amplification of whole or certain regions of the DNA exponentially, so that the sample becomes detectable.

5.

DNA extraction: DNA is isolated from the unknown crime-scene evidence (and/or any bodily fluids from the suspect).

6.

Separation of DNA fragmentation and their analysis through spectrophotometer and through other techniques, i.e., DNA quantification.

7.

Entering of the DNA fingerprinting performed on the sample obtained at the crime scene to the database to find a match or with the DNA of the suspect, i.e., DNA profile matching.

Read more

[View chapter](/science/article/pii/B9780128046593000063) [Explore book](/book/9780128046593)

[Read full chapter](/science/article/pii/B9780128046593000063)

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128046593000063

## [Selected papers from the 5th International Symposium on Advances in Legal Medicine (ISALM) 2002](/science/article/pii/S1344622302000871)

Walter Bär, in[Legal Medicine](/journal/legal-medicine), 2003

DNA profiling is especially powerful in detecting stain mixtures. The aim of any quantification in cases of non-exclusion is to statistically evaluate DNA profiles obtained from a stain to identify the assailants out of the group of tested persons – victims and suspects. A major progress marks the general formula proposed by \[7\]. Fukshansky and Bär \[8\] approached the problem on the basis of hypotheses testing which lead to a formula identical to the one of Weir et al. \[7\].

Read more

[View article](/science/article/pii/S1344622302000871)

[Read full article](/science/article/pii/S1344622302000871)

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1344622302000871

## [Determining the provenance and authenticity of seafood: A review of current methodologies](/science/article/pii/S0924224419303322)

Karthik Gopi, ... Neil Saintilan, in[Trends in Food Science & Technology](/journal/trends-in-food-science-and-technology), 2019

### 3.1DNA profiling

DNA profiling has been used extensively by several producers and authorities to determine the provenance of food (Scarano & Rao, 2014), due to the many advantages provided by DNA profiling. Using DNA profiling to identify animal species in food is ideal because the behaviour of DNA is not species-dependent and is predictable, food samples which have been heated up to 120 °C in the cooking process can still be analysed, and the diversity of DNA allows for the differentiation of closely-related species and even subspecies (Lenstra, 2003). Determining the species of plants or animals used in food products is an important part of detecting food adulteration as well as allowing for the detection of food substitution (Hsieh et al., 2010; Huang et al., 2014; Rehbein, 2008).

Generally, DNA profiling is based on two types of markers; hybridisation-based markers and Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)-based markers. Out of these two methods, PCR is considered faster and more accurate when compared to other methods (Labra et al., 2004; Teletchea, Maudet, & Hänni, 2005). There is a variety of other methods also used for DNA profiling in food traceability; however, the lack of standardisation and universality of methods is an issue (Galimberti et al., 2013). This is especially important as new species are introduced into the market as demonstrated by Rehbein (2008). When these species are introduced to new markets it is likely that they will also be subject to seafood fraud. For example, high-value species such as arrowtooth flounder ( _Atheresthes stomias_) and yellowfin sole ( _Limanda aspera_) were being substituted with cheaper species known as pangasius (including _Pangasius hypophthalmus_ and _Pangasius bocourti_) which were recently introduced to the European market. Rehbein (2008) focused on profiling these cheaper species to detect seafood fraud and noted that without a centralised public database it is difficult to use DNA profiling as a method for detecting food substitution. However, this is currently being addressed with databases such as the Barcode of Life Data System (BOLD) and the Fish Barcode of Life (FISH-BOL) (Barbuto et al., 2010).

DNA profiling has been used to investigate several instances of food substitution in the seafood market (Barbuto et al., 2010; Carrera et al., 2000; Cross & Challanain, 1991; Russell et al., 2000). Barbuto et al. (2010) collected 45 samples of “palombo” ( _Mustelus mustelus_ or _Mustelus asterias_) from the Italian market and characterised their DNA profile using PCR. When the profiles were compared to samples in BOLD, it was found that 35 out of the 45 samples were substituted with a different species. Only three of the collected samples could be related directly to “palombo” (they were all _M. mustelus_). While this study demonstrates that DNA profiling can determine the species of a product to help prevent seafood fraud, it also highlights the lack of standardised databases containing the DNA profile of different species of seafood. Thus, the DNA profile of the majority of seafood species need to be analysed and curated. Nevertheless, the method is able to show that a seafood product has been mislabelled or substituted.

Similarly, Carrera et al. (2000) used PCR to identify and compare the DNA profile of Atlantic salmon ( _S. salar_) and rainbow trout ( _O. mykiss_). The main purpose of this study was to determine if DNA profiling could differentiate between these two species because _S. salar_ is often substituted with _O. mykiss_, as it is a cheaper product. The study showed that DNA profiling could cost-effectively discriminate between these two species. The study also determined that the DNA profile of smoked samples was similar to the raw samples for both species, demonstrating the robustness of DNA. Additionally, Russell et al. (2000) used DNA profiling to differentiate between ten different species of salmon from a number of different locations. This study focused on using reactive enzymes to trim the DNA down to specific locations that differentiated between the species. Russell et al. (2000) were able to differentiate the species using a DNA fragment that can be amplified even in processed samples. This shows that the current process of DNA profiling can be further improved while reducing the cost of analysis and improving throughput. Hsieh et al. (2010) were able to replicate this process for four species of puffer fish. The method was less expensive than a direct sequencing analysis and was able to produce results within 9 h. The result suggests that this methodology is ideal for use in seafood identification, especially when a rapid analysis is required for regulatory bodies to make decisions. Huang et al. (2014) further expanded on this methodology by determining the gene markers for 12 different species of puffer fish and adding them to the GenBank database. The authors remarked that the short gene marker regions were remarkably stable against environmental stress and can be used with PCR. This is especially important once the species are processed and used as part of other products. These studies show the benefits of utilising PCR and characterising certain sections of DNA, the cost and benefit analysis of each method is important as food fraud already costs the food industry a large amount of money. Therefore, methods which can be used to detect and prevent food fraud need to be accurate while being affordable.

In addition to differentiating between species, it is also important to differentiate between the same species from different production methods. This is especially important for species like _Lates calcarifer_ as they are cultured and wild-caught in multiple countries (e.g. Australia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Taiwan, etc) and sold under different names in certain markets (e.g. Asian seabass vs Barramundi) (FAO, 2006). Cross and Challanain (1991) successfully discriminated between farmed and wild-caught _S. salar_ from Ireland. The farmed samples were genetically different as most of the fingerlings for the farming stock were likely from Norway or Scotland, while the wild-caught samples were genetically adapted to Ireland. The exact cause of genetic variation between the same species has not been researched exhaustively and some studies argue that the variation is caused by adapting to local conditions while others argue that it is caused by genetic drift (McGinnity et al., 1997). Although DNA markers may vary according to different geographic locations, the causes of genetic variation between the same species need to be explored to determine whether or not DNA profiling can be used as a method for determining the production method of seafood.

Read more

[View article](/science/article/pii/S0924224419303322)

[Read full article](/science/article/pii/S0924224419303322)

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224419303322

## [Determining the provenance and authenticity of seafood: A review of current methodologies](/science/article/pii/S0924224419303322)

Karthik Gopi, ... Neil Saintilan, in[Trends in Food Science & Technology](/journal/trends-in-food-science-and-technology), 2019

### 3Results and discussion

#### 3.1DNA profiling

DNA profiling has been used extensively by several producers and authorities to determine the provenance of food (Scarano & Rao, 2014), due to the many advantages provided by DNA profiling. Using DNA profiling to identify animal species in food is ideal because the behaviour of DNA is not species-dependent and is predictable, food samples which have been heated up to 120 °C in the cooking process can still be analysed, and the diversity of DNA allows for the differentiation of closely-related species and even subspecies (Lenstra, 2003). Determining the species of plants or animals used in food products is an important part of detecting food adulteration as well as allowing for the detection of food substitution (Hsieh et al., 2010; Huang et al., 2014; Rehbein, 2008).

Generally, DNA profiling is based on two types of markers; hybridisation-based markers and Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)-based markers. Out of these two methods, PCR is considered faster and more accurate when compared to other methods (Labra et al., 2004; Teletchea, Maudet, & Hänni, 2005). There is a variety of other methods also used for DNA profiling in food traceability; however, the lack of standardisation and universality of methods is an issue (Galimberti et al., 2013). This is especially important as new species are introduced into the market as demonstrated by Rehbein (2008). When these species are introduced to new markets it is likely that they will also be subject to seafood fraud. For example, high-value species such as arrowtooth flounder ( _Atheresthes stomias_) and yellowfin sole ( _Limanda aspera_) were being substituted with cheaper species known as pangasius (including _Pangasius hypophthalmus_ and _Pangasius bocourti_) which were recently introduced to the European market. Rehbein (2008) focused on profiling these cheaper species to detect seafood fraud and noted that without a centralised public database it is difficult to use DNA profiling as a method for detecting food substitution. However, this is currently being addressed with databases such as the Barcode of Life Data System (BOLD) and the Fish Barcode of Life (FISH-BOL) (Barbuto et al., 2010).

DNA profiling has been used to investigate several instances of food substitution in the seafood market (Barbuto et al., 2010; Carrera et al., 2000; Cross & Challanain, 1991; Russell et al., 2000). Barbuto et al. (2010) collected 45 samples of “palombo” ( _Mustelus mustelus_ or _Mustelus asterias_) from the Italian market and characterised their DNA profile using PCR. When the profiles were compared to samples in BOLD, it was found that 35 out of the 45 samples were substituted with a different species. Only three of the collected samples could be related directly to “palombo” (they were all _M. mustelus_). While this study demonstrates that DNA profiling can determine the species of a product to help prevent seafood fraud, it also highlights the lack of standardised databases containing the DNA profile of different species of seafood. Thus, the DNA profile of the majority of seafood species need to be analysed and curated. Nevertheless, the method is able to show that a seafood product has been mislabelled or substituted.

Similarly, Carrera et al. (2000) used PCR to identify and compare the DNA profile of Atlantic salmon ( _S. salar_) and rainbow trout ( _O. mykiss_). The main purpose of this study was to determine if DNA profiling could differentiate between these two species because _S. salar_ is often substituted with _O. mykiss_, as it is a cheaper product. The study showed that DNA profiling could cost-effectively discriminate between these two species. The study also determined that the DNA profile of smoked samples was similar to the raw samples for both species, demonstrating the robustness of DNA. Additionally, Russell et al. (2000) used DNA profiling to differentiate between ten different species of salmon from a number of different locations. This study focused on using reactive enzymes to trim the DNA down to specific locations that differentiated between the species. Russell et al. (2000) were able to differentiate the species using a DNA fragment that can be amplified even in processed samples. This shows that the current process of DNA profiling can be further improved while reducing the cost of analysis and improving throughput. Hsieh et al. (2010) were able to replicate this process for four species of puffer fish. The method was less expensive than a direct sequencing analysis and was able to produce results within 9 h. The result suggests that this methodology is ideal for use in seafood identification, especially when a rapid analysis is required for regulatory bodies to make decisions. Huang et al. (2014) further expanded on this methodology by determining the gene markers for 12 different species of puffer fish and adding them to the GenBank database. The authors remarked that the short gene marker regions were remarkably stable against environmental stress and can be used with PCR. This is especially important once the species are processed and used as part of other products. These studies show the benefits of utilising PCR and characterising certain sections of DNA, the cost and benefit analysis of each method is important as food fraud already costs the food industry a large amount of money. Therefore, methods which can be used to detect and prevent food fraud need to be accurate while being affordable.

In addition to differentiating between species, it is also important to differentiate between the same species from different production methods. This is especially important for species like _Lates calcarifer_ as they are cultured and wild-caught in multiple countries (e.g. Australia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Taiwan, etc) and sold under different names in certain markets (e.g. Asian seabass vs Barramundi) (FAO, 2006). Cross and Challanain (1991) successfully discriminated between farmed and wild-caught _S. salar_ from Ireland. The farmed samples were genetically different as most of the fingerlings for the farming stock were likely from Norway or Scotland, while the wild-caught samples were genetically adapted to Ireland. The exact cause of genetic variation between the same species has not been researched exhaustively and some studies argue that the variation is caused by adapting to local conditions while others argue that it is caused by genetic drift (McGinnity et al., 1997). Although DNA markers may vary according to different geographic locations, the causes of genetic variation between the same species need to be explored to determine whether or not DNA profiling can be used as a method for determining the production method of seafood.

#### 3.2Fatty acid profiling

Fatty acids are aliphatic monocarboxylic acids which are contained in, or derived from, an animal or vegetable fat, oil or wax. Natural fatty acids can be saturated or unsaturated and contain 4 to 28 carbons (Nic, Hovorka, Jirat, Kosata, & Znamenacek, 2014). Fatty acid profiling typically uses various methods of chromatography or spectroscopy to determine the fatty acid composition of samples (James et al., 2011). However, in seafood provenance research, it is typically bundled with Stable Isotope Analysis (SIA) (Busetto et al., 2008; Zhang, Liu, Li, & Zhao, 2017). While this method is slower than some of the others due to the time taken to prepare samples for analysis (Budge, Iverson, Bowen, & Ackman, 2002), it has shown promise in discriminating between production methods and geographic origin of samples (Bergström, 1989; Grahl-Nielsen, Jacobsen, Christophersen, & Magnesen, 2010; Grigorakis, Alexis, Taylor, & Hole, 2002; Nemova, Fokina, Nefedova, Ruokolainen, & Bakhmet, 2013; Olsen, Grahl-Nielsen, & Schander, 2009; Ricardo et al., 2015b).

The dietary lipids of penaeid shrimp are reflected in the fatty acid composition of samples. This was demonstrated by Lim, Ako, Brown, and Hahn (1997) who examined the differences in the fatty acid composition of _Penaeus vannamei_ fed seven different diets. While the aim of the study was not directly related to seafood provenance, it provides a basis for discriminating between shellfish. The diets which contained high levels of unsaturated fatty acids caused the fatty acid profile of the _P. vannamei_ to differ. This suggests that the differences in diets between farms and wild-caught shellfish should vary significantly, allowing for them to be distinguished. Budge et al. (2002) performed a large-scale study which analysed the fatty acids of 28 different species of fish and invertebrates from three geographic locations. Using fatty acid profiling they were able to determine the provenance of 16 of these species with an accuracy greater than 98%. While they were able to distinguish between geographic origin using fatty acid profiles influenced by diets, the variation within-species was not as high as that of among-species variation, suggesting that differentiating between production methods may be difficult. This paper showcases the utility of fatty acid profiling in distinguishing between different geographic locations of seafood. Grigorakis et al. (2002) analysed the fatty acids on gilthead sea bream ( _Sparus aurata_) using a VARIAN 3300 gas chromatograph. While this study was not specifically aimed at determining the provenance of _S. aurata_, it still showed that there was a significant difference in the lipid and fatty acid profile of wild-caught samples compared to farmed samples. In all cases, it was found that the farmed samples had higher lipid content than their wild counterparts. Additionally, it is important to note that the fatty acid profile of the farmed samples reflected the composition of their feed. This shows that fatty acid profiling can also be suitable for distinguishing between farmed and wild-caught fish. However, Grigorakis et al. (2002) noted that there was a significant seasonal variation in wild-caught _S. aurata_ samples. This could become a potential issue if the samples’ fatty acid profile matches that of one from an entirely different region due to these seasonal variations. This is a well-known issue and was already highlighted by Bergström (1989). The study by Bergström (1989) showed that the seasonal changes in fatty acid composition and total lipid content of wild and farmed _S. salar_ vary significantly before smolting. Smolting is a process by which the salmon undergoes morphological changes before migrating to the sea (McCormick, Hansen, Quinn, & Saunders, 1998). The wild-caught _S. salar_ had a significantly higher concentration of saturated fats than the farmed _S. salar_. The study also found that some polyunsaturated fatty acids were higher in wild-caught samples when compared to farmed samples. Additionally, significant changes were found in the total lipid content of both farmed and wild-caught fish between seasons. While Bergström (1989) did not aim to discriminate between the farmed and wild-caught salmon, the results are still significant for food traceability. The results from this study suggest that there are significant seasonal changes to the lipid content of fish and that this needs to be considered when attempting to trace the geographic origin and production method of seafood using fatty acid profiling. Nemova et al. (2013) were able to show that the fatty acid profile of the gill lipids in blue mussels ( _Mytilus edulis_) varied greatly with salinity. This variation in the fatty acid composition can be used to distinguish between different production methods such as intertidal zone collection or aquaculture. The results from these studies suggest that fatty acid profiling can be a valuable tool to trace the production method of seafood.

Ricardo et al. (2015b) used the fatty acid profile of cockles ( _Cerastoderma edule_) to determine if it could distinguish between eight different sites which were from a single coastal lagoon in Portugal. The study found that fatty acid profiling was able to discriminate between collection sites within the same coastal region. However, it was unable to discriminate between the same production areas. It is important to note that these sites are defined by the amount of _Escherichia coli_ present in the flesh of the _C. edule_. Therefore, discriminating between these collection and production areas can be an important marketing tool for the _C. edule_ industry as it will be able to prove that the product is of higher value due to a lower amount of contamination. Additionally, Ricardo et al. (2015b) note that the method can be even more cost effective by focusing on a particular part of the cockles. Olsen et al. (2009) used fatty acid profiling to differentiate clams ( _Astarte sulcata_) between four areas, grouped according to proximity, in Norway. The study found that fatty acid profiling is advantageous when comparing closely-related sites as it gives high-resolution results, allowing it to detect small changes in populations that are geographically close. However, it is important to note that the composition of the fatty acids present in the samples is what discriminates between sites and not the presence or absence of certain fatty acids. Similarly, Grahl-Nielsen et al. (2010) used fatty acid profiling to discriminate between five locations along the coastal regions of Norway. The data collected in the study were analysed using Partial Least Square (PLS) and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to distinguish between groups. The study found that the five sites had distinct fatty acid compositions, further supporting the conclusion drawn by Olsen et al. (2009). Hence, it is clear that fatty acid profiling can play a distinct role in distinguishing samples from geographical locations.

Fatty acid profiling has also been used in conjunction with SIA to distinguish between the geographic origins of seafood. A study conducted by Busetto et al. (2008), comparing the fatty acid composition of wild and farmed turbots, found that the monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids of the farmed fish were higher than in wild-caught fish. This would enable a measurable difference in the fatty acid composition of the two production methods. Both the fatty acid and SIA results were used in a PCA to discriminate between geographic locations and the production methods of turbots. Similarly, Zhang et al. (2017) used fatty acid profiling and SIA of carbon and nitrogen to differentiate between sea cucumbers ( _Apostichopus japonicus_) collected from seven sites in northern China. While the stable carbon and nitrogen values were capable of distinguishing between five out of the seven sites, it had an overlap between two, likely due to the fish having similar food sources. However, by using both the stable isotope values and fatty acid profiles, the PCA was able to distinguish between the seven sites clearly.

#### 3.3Elemental profiling

Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) is a high-precision method used to detect the concentrations of trace elements in geological samples (Jenner, Longerich, Jackson, & Fryer, 1990; Reid, Horn, Longerich, Forsythe, & Jenner, 1999). ICP-MS has been utilised in the field of food traceability and can distinguish between the geographic origins of seafood (Dunphy, Millet, & Jeffs, 2011; Ricardo et al., 2015a; Sorte, Etter, Spackman, Boyle, & Hannigan, 2013). This method requires samples to be digested before being analysed and certain elements, such as mercury, may require further preparation (Hight & Cheng, 2006; Ricardo et al., 2015a). Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-AES) also known as Inductively Coupled Plasma-Optical Emission Spectrometry (ICP-OES) is similar to ICP-MS and has also been utilised in seafood provenance studies (K. A. Anderson, Hobbie, & Smith, 2010; Li, Boyd, Odom, & Dong, 2013; Smith & Watts, 2009). These methods can be performed on both soft tissue and hard calcified tissue; the methodology and interpretation of results are different according to the type of tissue sample being examined (K. A. Anderson et al., 2010; Dunphy et al., 2011).

Sorte et al. (2013) used laser-ablation inductively-coupled mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) to determine the geographical origin of blue mussel ( _Mytilus edulis_). The study was able to distinguish between five different sites, roughly 50 km apart, with greater than 50% accuracy in all cases. The accuracy was higher for juvenile samples and when close sites were grouped together it increased the accuracy to 97%. Similarly, Dunphy et al. (2011) used LA-ICP-MS to assign juvenile mussels to their collection sites around northern New Zealand with over 60% accuracy in all cases. Seven elemental ratios were proven to be the most reliable when used with discriminant analysis. This study is important as it demonstrates that not all elements need to be determined when distinguishing the provenance of seafood samples. Ricardo et al. (2015a) used ICP-MS to determine the concentration of aluminium, barium, calcium, cadmium, copper, magnesium, manganese, lead, strontium and zinc in cockle _(Cerastoderma edule)_ shells. These 10 elements were analysed using three different statistical analyses and it was found that these elements were capable of distinguishing samples as little as 1 km apart. Cubadda, Raggi, and Coni (2006) used ICP-MS to determine the elemental concentration of 16 different elements present in Mediterranean mussel ( _Mytilus galloprovincialis_) and a few other species of fin-fish. Using PCA they were able to clearly distinguish between three farming sites in close proximity. Similarly, Costas-Rodríguez, Lavilla, and Bendicho (2010) determined 40 elements in 158 samples and used it to distinguish between five collection sites of _M. galloprovincialis_. The study used linear discriminant analysis (LDA) and found that reducing the number of elements down to 16 reduced the accuracy down to 95.6% but had a number of incorrect predictions.

ICP-AES has also been utilised as a method for determining the elemental composition of samples to differentiate between geographic locations. K. A. Anderson et al. (2010) used a combination of ICP-AES and SIA to differentiate between farmed and wild-caught king salmon ( _Oncorhynchus tshawytscha_), coho salmon ( _Oncorhynchus kisutch_) and Atlantic salmon ( _Salmo salar_). Using PCA and Canonical Discriminant Analysis (CDA) it was possible to discriminate between the production methods of each species using only 12 elements. This demonstrates the efficacy of the ICP-AES methodology in determining the provenance of seafood. Similarly, Li et al. (2013) utilised ICP-AES to discriminate between three different locations of channel catfish ( _Ictalurus punctatus_) and blue catfish ( _Ictalurus furcatus_) using 11 elements. While the study was able to successfully discriminate the geographic origin of the samples, it was noted that the elemental profile could vary or even be similar across various locations with similar elemental compositions. Additionally, as the elemental composition of water will vary within the same geographic origin, it is important to have a large database of the elemental composition of a species for a given country, before elemental profiling can be used for seafood provenance (Li et al., 2013). A similar issue was raised by Smith and Watts (2009) when they undertook a large scale study to determine the provenance of prawns (mostly _P. vannamei_ and _Penaeus monodon_) from 8 countries. The samples were collected from around ten regions in each country and analysed using ICP-MS. The overall accuracy of the database was around 90% and the study calls for databases to be built for different geographic origins to provide a comparative base to allow for accurate prawn provenance determination (Smith & Watts, 2009).

#### 3.4Stable isotope analysis

SIA uses isotopes to distinguish between samples. Isotopes are elements which have the same number of protons but different numbers of neutrons. Stable isotopes are assimilated into animal tissues as they move up through the trophic chain (Fry, 1991; Mazumder, Wen, Johansen, Kobayashi, & Saintilan, 2016; Peterson & Fry, 1987; Post, 2002). Typically, the technique determines the stable isotopes of carbon (δ13C) and nitrogen (δ15N) but hydrogen and oxygen can also be detected. Primary producers have a distinct isotopic signature and when they are consumed by animals this signature assimilates into the tissues of the consumers through a process known as fractionation, which is caused by the changes in the heavy to the light isotopic ratio (Ehleringer, Rundel, & Nagy, 1986). The stable carbon isotopes indicate the sources of nutrients, while the nitrogen isotopes indicate the trophic level of an organism in the food web. Because the isotopic values of a consumer are related to the composition of the diet (Fry, 2006; Kling, Fry, & O'Brien, 1992), the differences in such diets, stemming from changes in farming practices or environmental conditions, would be reflected in the isotopic profile of consumer's muscle.

SIA for food provenance has shown positive results when discriminating between production methods (Carter, Tinggi, Yang, & Fry, 2015; Gamboa-Delgado et al., 2014; Kim, Kumar, & Shin, 2015; Ortea & Gallardo, 2015; Turchini, Quinn, Jones, Palmeri, & Gooley, 2009). Molkentin, Meisel, Lehmann, and Rehbein (2007) utilised SIA of the δ13C and δ15N ratio to differentiate between conventionally farmed, wild caught and organically farmed Atlantic salmon. However, SIA alone was not able to distinguish between the three and the studies found that a combination of linoleic acid and SIA was necessary to distinguish between the three different production methods of the Atlantic salmon. Molkentin, Lehmann, Ostermeyer, and Rehbein (2015) used stable isotopes and fatty acid analysis to distinguish between the organic and conventionally farmed Atlantic salmon. This study showed that it was possible to distinguish between the production methods of Atlantic salmon using SIA alone. Similarly, Fasolato, et al. (2010) used δ13C analysis of fat-free muscle to successfully distinguish between farmed and wild-caught _L. calcarifer_, as the δ13C shows the feeding habit of the fish. Fasolato et al. (2010) selected δ13C based on the study by Sweeting, Barry, Polunin, and Jennings (2007) who concluded that δ13C has minimal seasonal variation, especially in large predatory fish. A recent study by Gopi et al. (2019b), showed that SIA alone was able to determine the provenance of _L. calcarifer_ with over 84% accuracy and only had two incorrect predictions out of six. This suggests that SIA, like many of the other methods, can distinguish the provenance of seafood. However, Gopi et al. (2019b) found a significant enrichment in the δ15N values of wild-caught _L_. _calcarifer_. This finding conflicts with the findings of Serrano, Blanes, and Orero (2007) as they found no significant enrichment of δ15N values for wild-caught gilthead sea bream ( _Sparus aurata_). The difference in enrichment could be due to interspecies variability, as the studies analysed data from two different species. However, the findings of Gopi et al. (2019b) agree with Moreno-Rojas, Tulli, Messina, Tibaldi, and Guillou (2008) who analysed rainbow trout ( _O. mykiss_) using SIA to discriminate between samples fed with fishmeal and plant-based protein diets. The study found that the samples fed the fishmeal were significantly enriched in δ15N due to the fish-based proteins present in their diet.

On the other hand, other studies which have used SIA to determine the geographic origin of samples found that utilising SIA alone was not always accurate (Carter et al., 2015; Turchini et al., 2009). Further studies are needed to investigate the application of SIA combined with other analytical techniques to assess if the approach can determine the geographic region of samples accurately. Kim, Kumar, Hwang, et al. (2015) used SIA to differentiate between the geographic origin of shrimp and hairtail fish. The study found that the Korean hairtail fish (family Trichiuridae) and their international counterparts had significantly different isotopic signatures for both δ13C and δ15N. This suggests that SIA can be used to discriminate between the same species from various geographical locations. Gamboa-Delgado et al. (2014) used SIA to differentiate between wild-caught and farmed Pacific white shrimp ( _Litopenaeus vannamei_) where there was more variability in the δ13C values of the wild-caught and farmed shrimp than in their δ15N values. The variability of the δ15N values was significantly lower in the farmed samples than in the wild-caught samples. In general, the samples which were wild caught were isotopically enhanced for both δ13C and δ15N. Using both the δ13C and δ15N isotope values to discriminate between the samples is ideal as it had an accuracy of 99% in this study.

SIA is not without fault as noted by a study conducted to discriminate between cultured and wild caught turbot ( _Psetta maxima_). The SIA results showed overlap between the carbon and nitrogen ratios of wild-caught Danish turbots and cultured Spanish turbots (Busetto et al., 2008). This argument is supported by a number of studies such as the review conducted by Primrose et al. (2010), which suggests that SIA should be combined with trace element measurements to provide a comprehensive method for seafood traceability. Ortea and Gallardo (2015) found that combining the carbon and nitrogen stable isotope ratios along with other elements such as arsenic and lead is the most reliable method of tracing the production method and geographic origin respectively. Carter et al. (2015) used SIA to analyse both the water recovered from prawn samples as well as the prawns in order to distinguish between Australian and imported prawns. The water had no correlation with their respective tissue samples and using the results obtained from the water was not sufficient to distinguish between Australian and imported samples; the isotopic analysis revealed significant differences in hydrogen and carbon isotopes. Turchini et al. (2009) used chemical analyses as well as carbon, nitrogen and oxygen stable isotopes to discriminate between different farms. This study showed the effectiveness of SIA in differentiating between farms in the same region. However, a study conducted on wild-caught and farmed Brazilian freshwater cachara suggested that the C/N ratio of these fish varies seasonally, especially in the wet season. However, the C/N ratio was indistinguishable in the dry season, suggesting that the farmed and wild-caught samples would be indistinguishable during this time period. The lack of variation between the production methods needs to be studied to determine the cause (Sant’Ana, Ducatti, & Ramires, 2010). Gopi et al. (2019b) used both SIA and elemental profiling, through X-ray fluorescence, and found that a combined model built using both datasets had an accuracy of 81% and had no incorrect predictions out of six. This result was repeated by Gopi et al. (2019a) for black tiger prawns ( _P. monodon_) where the combined dataset resulted in an accuracy of >98%. Both these studies showed that SIA can be utilised in conjunction with other analytical techniques to provide an accurate tool to authenticate the provenance of seafood. We believe that the higher accuracy shown in both Gopi et al. (2019b) and Gopi et al. (2019a) is due to the way in which they analysed the data; both studies used multiple statistical analyses designed to distinguish between groups to determine the provenance of their samples, leading to an increased overall accuracy. While these results are promising, the methodology needs to be studied further as they found variations in the results depending on the species.

Read more

[View article](/science/article/pii/S0924224419303322)

[Read full article](/science/article/pii/S0924224419303322)

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224419303322

## [Selected papers from the 5th International Symposium on Advances in Legal Medicine (ISALM) 2002](/science/article/pii/S1344622302000871)

Walter Bär, in[Legal Medicine](/journal/legal-medicine), 2003

DNA profiling has become the established forensic procedure when dealing with biological stains in crime investigation or when paternity is in question. In the last decade the technical methodology underwent several modifications and dramatic improvements. The main improvement was a spectacular increase in sensitivity since less then 1 ng of template DNA – equivalent to 10 nucleated cells – is sufficient for the generation of a DNA profile using the polymerase chain reaction. The reduction of the analysis time due to automation of some of the analytical steps and the availability of multiplex kits are additional important factors for the success of the technique. These improvements also made it possible to analyze so-called low copy number DNA (LCN) often left at the surface of tools or objects by criminals (and common users) with the disadvantage that these profiles often reveal degradation, stochastic effects in amplification products and mixtures. Therefore mixed stains – incomplete or with contaminants – are more frequently observed. Crime investigation has also revealed that crimes are often committed by groups of criminals which are composed of genetically related individuals.

Read more

[View article](/science/article/pii/S1344622302000871)

[Read full article](/science/article/pii/S1344622302000871)

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1344622302000871

## [Genetic Exceptionalism](/science/article/pii/B9780123739322000363)

P. Kakuk, in[Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics (Second Edition)](/referencework/9780123739322/encyclopedia-of-applied-ethics), 2012

### Identifying potential

Although genetic fingerprinting or DNA profiling has become a very popular application in the field of criminal investigation and forensic science, there are other nongenetic techniques for identifying individuals. DNA identification might be more reliable and effective than iris scans and traditional fingerprinting, but it still shares some of their limitations. DNA profiling technology also needs a reference sample in order to identify a person. However, even without a reference sample, some characteristics of the person might be inferred from DNA analyses with a varying degree of probability, which was not possible with traditional fingerprinting technology.

Read more

[View chapter](/science/article/pii/B9780123739322000363) [Explore book](/referencework/9780123739322)

[Read full chapter](/science/article/pii/B9780123739322000363)

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123739322000363

## [FORENSIC SCIENCES \| DNA Profiling](/science/article/pii/B0123693977001953)

R. Coquoz, in[Encyclopedia of Analytical Science (Second Edition)](/referencework/9780123693976/encyclopedia-of-analytical-science), 2005

### DNA Profiling in Practice

Any kind of biological material containing DNA may be used. The traditional types of traces can be easily analyzed: blood stains, semen stains, autopsy tissue, bone, etc. But thanks to the sensitivity made possible by the PCR, the largest number of samples submitted to DNA forensic laboratories is now saliva stains and above all contact traces (traces of the contact between skin and other surfaces). This is the main breakthrough of the last few years: the ability to make use of a large set of traces that were not even considered 10 years ago. The contact traces have led to the involvement of DNA profiling in the investigations of any type of crime, even the minor categories like burglary or theft that represent the largest category. As a consequence, the number of samples submitted to the DNA laboratory has exploded.

Although DNA profiling can make use of extremely faint traces, there are limits to its power. Logically, the traces have to contain the DNA of at least one cell. In practice, the requirements are higher. About a hundred cells are necessary to obtain a DNA profile using the standard methods. Since any human cell contains ∼6pg of DNA, a trace has to contain ∼0.5ng DNA for a successful DNA analysis. The requirements are naturally reduced for ultrasensitive LCN protocols. The DNA concentration is ∼30ng DNAμl−1 in blood, 400ngμl−1 in semen, 2ngμl−1 in saliva, and 0–250ng per hair root. About 0.01μl of blood might thus be sufficient to provide a DNA profile. But such a small amount might be extremely hard to detect on a set of clothes and it is evident that some of the main difficulties of the forensic investigation of traces have shifted toward the detection of the minute traces of biological material theoretically exploitable. The availability of sensitive chemical or biochemical tests for blood and semen is sometimes of great help in this respect. For saliva, the available tests are less sensitive. For contact traces, there is no detection method. The sampling of the traces is done simply by assuming where the traces ought to be. A sometimes disturbing consequence is that the DNA profile obtained at the end of the analysis cannot be attributed to a specific material, and the meaning of the presence of biological material from a suspect on a surface might be widely different if it is skin material or saliva.

An important factor in DNA profiling is the quality of the material. DNA is quite a robust molecule and usable DNA fragments have been recovered from 1000-year-old mummies. However, it can be very quickly degraded into smaller fragments when exposed to humidity, heat, or sunlight. Today's DNA-profiling methods target very short DNA fragments, the STRs. They may still be applied successfully on partially degraded samples. Furthermore, there are all the chemicals such as dyes or proteins contained in the traces or their support that can interfere in the delicate enzymatic steps involved in PCR amplification, the so-called inhibitors. All the DNA typing procedures involve a DNA isolation and purification step, which tries to eliminate the inhibitors. But their complete elimination is never warranted. Negative results (absence of DNA profile at the end of the analysis) then have to be critically scrutinized since they can be caused either by the absence of DNA or by the interference of inhibitors.

The remarkable sensitivity of multiplex PCR analysis of STRs makes it particularly vulnerable to contamination events. Accidental DNA exchange from one sample to the other, from lab personnel to the samples, etc., can occur and be unnoticed. The large-scale use of negative controls should reveal such contamination events. Moreover, the establishment of adequate laboratory design and use of pertinent working guidelines and decontamination procedures should prevent the occurrence of such damaging episodes.

Involuntary transfer of biological material is the cause of the existence of crime scene traces whose analysis has made a DNA-profiling techniques success. But involuntary transfer of biological material is also a matter of concern when it leads to contamination. In the worst scenarios, involuntary transfer of biological material can have even more worrying consequences when innocent sources leave traces that might be wrongly considered as crime scene traces. In such cases the power of DNA profiling may lead to the use of nonpertinent traces to accuse innocent persons of having a link to a crime. This danger is made even more likely by the extension of intelligence databases.

Read more

[View chapter](/science/article/pii/B0123693977001953) [Explore book](/referencework/9780123693976)

[Read full chapter](/science/article/pii/B0123693977001953)

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0123693977001953

## [Current and emerging tools for the recovery of genetic information from post mortem samples: New directions for disaster victim identification](/science/article/pii/S1872497318301935)

J. Watherston, ... J. Ward, in[Forensic Science International: Genetics](/journal/forensic-science-international-genetics), 2018

### 1Introduction

The primary and most reliable means of identification for disaster victim identification (DVI) are fingerprint analysis, dental comparison and DNA analysis \[1\]. DNA profiling has become the gold standard for the identification of victims in both mass casualty incidents and forensic cases where human remains are highly fragmented and/or degraded \[2\]. This is due to the relatively low cost and high degree of discrimination DNA-based identification can provide. In addition to identifying victims, DNA profiling also offers the ability to reassociate body parts and can aid in the identification of offenders where human activity has led to a mass casualty event \[2\]. Challenges associated with the sampling of remains can include the number of victims, mechanisms of body destruction, extent of body fragmentation and body accessibility \[3\]. Disaster locations considered hostile environments can also pose additional challenges for the recovery effort.

Read more

[View article](/science/article/pii/S1872497318301935)

[Read full article](/science/article/pii/S1872497318301935)

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1872497318301935

## Related terms:

- [Genetics](/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/genetics)
- [Mitochondrial DNA](/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/mitochondrial-dna)
- [Polymerase Chain Reaction](/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/polymerase-chain-reaction)
- [Single-Nucleotide Polymorphism](/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/single-nucleotide-polymorphism)
- [Enzyme](/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/enzyme)
- [DNA Analysis](/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/dna-analysis)
- [Microsatellite DNA](/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/microsatellite-dna)
- [Allele](/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/allele)
- [DNA Sequence](/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/dna-sequence)
- [Circulating Tumor DNA](/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/circulating-tumor-dna)

[View all Topics](/topics)

## Recommended publications

Info icon

- [![Forensic Science International](https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0379073824X00079-cov150h.gif)](/journal/forensic-science-international)
[**Forensic Science International**](/journal/forensic-science-international)

Journal

- [![International Congress Series](https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/S05315131.gif)](/journal/international-congress-series)
[**International Congress Series**](/journal/international-congress-series)

Journal

- [![Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series](https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1875176822X00024-cov150h.gif)](/journal/forensic-science-international-genetics-supplement-series)
[**Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series**](/journal/forensic-science-international-genetics-supplement-series)

Journal

- [![Forensic Science International: Genetics](https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1872497324X00022-cov150h.gif)](/journal/forensic-science-international-genetics)
[**Forensic Science International: Genetics**](/journal/forensic-science-international-genetics)

Journal


[Browse books and journals](/browse/journals-and-books)

## Featured Authors

Info icon

1. [Butler, John M.](/author/7403925483/john-m-butler)
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, United States


Citations**9,709**



_h_-index**57**



Publications**71**

2. [Gusmão, Leonor](/author/56871303000/leonor-gusmao)
Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil


Citations**9,507**



_h_-index**50**



Publications**239**

3. [Sànchez, Juan J.](/author/7403998988/juan-j-sanchez)
Instituto de Farmacologia y Toxicologia, Madrid, Spain


Citations**3,941**



_h_-index**29**



Publications**38**

4. [Niederstätter, Harald](/author/6603344723/harald-niederstatter)
Medizinische Universitat Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria


Citations**3,715**



_h_-index**34**



Publications**41**


[![Elsevier logo with wordmark](https://sdfestaticassets-us-east-1.sciencedirectassets.com/shared-assets/47/images/elsevier-non-solus-new-with-wordmark.svg)](https://www.elsevier.com/)

- [About ScienceDirect](https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/sciencedirect)
- [Remote access](/user/institution/login?targetURL=%2Ftopics%2Fbiochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology%2Fdna-profiling)
- [Shopping cart](https://sd-cart.elsevier.com/?)
- [Advertise](https://www.elsmediakits.com)
- [Contact and support](https://service.elsevier.com/app/contact/supporthub/sciencedirect/)
- [Terms and conditions](https://www.elsevier.com/legal/elsevier-website-terms-and-conditions)
- [Privacy policy](https://www.elsevier.com/legal/privacy-policy)

Cookies are used by this site. **Cookie Settings**

All content on this site: Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V., its licensors, and contributors. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies. For all open access content, the Creative Commons licensing terms apply.

[![RELX group home page](https://sdfestaticassets-us-east-1.sciencedirectassets.com/shared-assets/60/images/logo-relx-tm.svg)](https://www.relx.com/)