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 |
|
| State | Published - Oct 1 2016 |
Fingerprint
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Pathology and Forensic Medicine
Cite this
}
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
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 -