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 journalComment/debate

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 languageEnglish (US)
Number of pages1
JournalForensic Science International
Volume267
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2016

Fingerprint

Forensic Sciences
Dermatoglyphics
Radiation
DNA
corrigendum

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Cite this

@article{8df787c23bb04e99a4d88bfa537dc5bc,
title = "Erratum: Corrigendum to “Comparison of Quantifiler{\circledR} 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))",
abstract = "The authors would like to amend their concluding remarks. Instead of: “The Quantifiler{\circledR} 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{\circledR} 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 = "10",
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",

}

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 -