Police may someday identify suspects by their hair, say scientists

Variations of the proteins found in hair may be as valid an identification method as DNA, say researchers, which could aid in analyzing crime-scene evidence.

Shannon Broderick/AP/File
A forensic analyst at the Game and Fish Wildlife Forensic Laboratory is isolating a section of chromosome from a DNA sample to aid in species identification at the University of Wyoming in Laramie, Wyo.

DNA is a staple of crime scene investigations, particularly those seen on TV, because it is far and away the most accurate method we have of matching evidence to a specific individual.

But not all crime scenes have clear DNA markers, so in 2009 the US National Research Council issued a call for new research and reforms to repair deficiencies in forensic science methods.

In response, a research team lead by Glendon Parker at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California published a study in PLOS One that looks into the possibility of analyzing genetic mutations of the proteins found in hair as an alternative forensic identification method. While hair analysis has a long way to go before it becomes the crime show staple that DNA testing is, it provides insight into what the future of crime scene investigation might look like.

"We are in a very similar place with protein-based identification to where DNA profiling was during the early days of its development," Brad Hart, director of the national laboratory's Forensic Science Center and co-author of the study, told The Washington Post. "This method will be a game-changer for forensics."

While protein-based identification may never replace the accuracy of DNA testing, researchers hope that it will eventually provide a valid alternative for when DNA fails – like when it is exposed to damaging water, light, heat, or the natural breakdown over time.

Like DNA, hair proteins contain genetic variation because DNA provides the code for how the amino acids that make up proteins are structured. Unlike DNA, proteins do not break down easily and can survive for longer periods of time.

"Because protein is more abundant and more robust than DNA, this potentially opens up enormous avenues of research in bioarchaeology and forensic science that couldn't have been tackled before," said Andrew Wilson at the University of Bradford in England, who provided the old hair samples used to test the technique, to New Scientist.

In order for proteins to be a valid alternative however, the frequency at which these mutations occur within a population must be assessed. The research team discovered 185 protein markers across 82 hair samples coming mostly from European-Americans but also including samples from African-Americans, Kenyans, and even six from bodies in cemeteries from the 1750s to 1850s. Each sample proved to contain a unique number and pattern of protein markers.

The researchers acknowledge that follow-up research must be done before hair protein is a valid alternative to DNA. The sample size needs to be larger and more varied to corroborate the findings. In addition, the method currently requires more hair than would be likely left behind at a crime scene.

Christopher Hopkins, director of the Forensic Science ­Graduate Program at the ­University of California at Davis, told The Washington Post he had additional questions pertaining to the study, including whether other factors such as diet or the environment can change protein markers over time.

"The best-case scenario is you will eventually have, in five to 10 years, a complementary but separate method than we currently have to correctly identify or to exclude the right person involved in a crime,” said Glinda Cooper, director of science and research at the Innocence Project, which advocates for prisoners seeking exoneration through DNA ­testing.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.