Erratum: Corrigendum to “Comparison of Quantifiler® Trio and InnoQuant™ human DNA quantification kits for detection of DNA degradation in developed and aged fingerprints” (Forensic Science International (2016) 263 (132–138)(S037907381630161X)(10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.04.009))

Zachary C. Goecker; Stephen E. Swiontek; Akhlesh Lakhtakia; Reena Roy

doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.07.003

Erratum: Corrigendum to “Comparison of Quantifiler^® Trio and InnoQuant™ human DNA quantification kits for detection of DNA degradation in developed and aged fingerprints” (Forensic Science International (2016) 263 (132–138)(S037907381630161X)(10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.04.009))

Zachary C. Goecker, Stephen E. Swiontek, Akhlesh Lakhtakia, Reena Roy

Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/debate › peer-review

Abstract

The authors would like to amend their concluding remarks. Instead of: “The Quantifiler^® Trio kits consistently produced higher degradation ratios than the InnoQuantTM kit, possibly due to the persistence of the short target throughout the duration of the exposure of the DNA to UV radiation”. The article should have stated: “The InnoQuant™ kit consistently produced higher degradation ratios than the Quantifiler^® Trio kit, possibly due to the persistence of the short target throughout the duration of the exposure of the DNA to UV radiation”. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Original language	English (US)
Number of pages	1
Journal	Forensic science international
Volume	267
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.07.003
State	Published - Oct 1 2016

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Access to Document

10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.07.003

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Erratum: Corrigendum to “Comparison of Quantifiler<sup>®</sup> Trio and InnoQuant™ human DNA quantification kits for detection of DNA degradation in developed and aged fingerprints” (Forensic Science International (2016) 263 (132–138)(S037907381630161X)(10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.04.009))'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this

Goecker, Z. C., Swiontek, S. E., Lakhtakia, A., & Roy, R. (2016). Erratum: Corrigendum to “Comparison of Quantifiler^® Trio and InnoQuant™ human DNA quantification kits for detection of DNA degradation in developed and aged fingerprints” (Forensic Science International (2016) 263 (132–138)(S037907381630161X)(10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.04.009)). Forensic science international, 267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.07.003

Goecker, Zachary C. ; Swiontek, Stephen E. ; Lakhtakia, Akhlesh ; Roy, Reena. / Erratum : Corrigendum to “Comparison of Quantifiler^® Trio and InnoQuant™ human DNA quantification kits for detection of DNA degradation in developed and aged fingerprints” (Forensic Science International (2016) 263 (132–138)(S037907381630161X)(10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.04.009)). In: Forensic science international. 2016 ; Vol. 267.

@article{8df787c23bb04e99a4d88bfa537dc5bc,

title = "Erratum: Corrigendum to “Comparison of Quantifiler{\textregistered} Trio and InnoQuant{\texttrademark} human DNA quantification kits for detection of DNA degradation in developed and aged fingerprints” (Forensic Science International (2016) 263 (132–138)(S037907381630161X)(10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.04.009))",

abstract = "The authors would like to amend their concluding remarks. Instead of: “The Quantifiler{\textregistered} Trio kits consistently produced higher degradation ratios than the InnoQuantTM kit, possibly due to the persistence of the short target throughout the duration of the exposure of the DNA to UV radiation”. The article should have stated: “The InnoQuant{\texttrademark} kit consistently produced higher degradation ratios than the Quantifiler{\textregistered} Trio kit, possibly due to the persistence of the short target throughout the duration of the exposure of the DNA to UV radiation”. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.",

author = "Goecker, {Zachary C.} and Swiontek, {Stephen E.} and Akhlesh Lakhtakia and Reena Roy",

year = "2016",

month = oct,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.07.003",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "267",

journal = "Forensic Science International",

issn = "0379-0738",

publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",

}

Goecker, ZC, Swiontek, SE, Lakhtakia, A & Roy, R 2016, 'Erratum: Corrigendum to “Comparison of Quantifiler^® Trio and InnoQuant™ human DNA quantification kits for detection of DNA degradation in developed and aged fingerprints” (Forensic Science International (2016) 263 (132–138)(S037907381630161X)(10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.04.009))', Forensic science international, vol. 267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.07.003

Erratum : Corrigendum to “Comparison of Quantifiler^® Trio and InnoQuant™ human DNA quantification kits for detection of DNA degradation in developed and aged fingerprints” (Forensic Science International (2016) 263 (132–138)(S037907381630161X)(10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.04.009)). / Goecker, Zachary C.; Swiontek, Stephen E.; Lakhtakia, Akhlesh ; Roy, Reena.

In: Forensic science international, Vol. 267, 01.10.2016.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/debate › peer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Erratum

T2 - Corrigendum to “Comparison of Quantifiler® Trio and InnoQuant™ human DNA quantification kits for detection of DNA degradation in developed and aged fingerprints” (Forensic Science International (2016) 263 (132–138)(S037907381630161X)(10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.04.009))

AU - Goecker, Zachary C.

AU - Swiontek, Stephen E.

AU - Lakhtakia, Akhlesh

AU - Roy, Reena

PY - 2016/10/1

Y1 - 2016/10/1

N2 - The authors would like to amend their concluding remarks. Instead of: “The Quantifiler® Trio kits consistently produced higher degradation ratios than the InnoQuantTM kit, possibly due to the persistence of the short target throughout the duration of the exposure of the DNA to UV radiation”. The article should have stated: “The InnoQuant™ kit consistently produced higher degradation ratios than the Quantifiler® Trio kit, possibly due to the persistence of the short target throughout the duration of the exposure of the DNA to UV radiation”. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

AB - The authors would like to amend their concluding remarks. Instead of: “The Quantifiler® Trio kits consistently produced higher degradation ratios than the InnoQuantTM kit, possibly due to the persistence of the short target throughout the duration of the exposure of the DNA to UV radiation”. The article should have stated: “The InnoQuant™ kit consistently produced higher degradation ratios than the Quantifiler® Trio kit, possibly due to the persistence of the short target throughout the duration of the exposure of the DNA to UV radiation”. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84991783992&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84991783992&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.07.003

DO - 10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.07.003

M3 - Comment/debate

C2 - 27474354

AN - SCOPUS:84991783992

VL - 267

JO - Forensic Science International

JF - Forensic Science International

SN - 0379-0738

ER -

Goecker ZC, Swiontek SE, Lakhtakia A , Roy R. Erratum: Corrigendum to “Comparison of Quantifiler^® Trio and InnoQuant™ human DNA quantification kits for detection of DNA degradation in developed and aged fingerprints” (Forensic Science International (2016) 263 (132–138)(S037907381630161X)(10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.04.009)). Forensic science international. 2016 Oct 1;267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.07.003