User:Nameless and unknown/Fingerprint

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biology[edit]

The friction ridges on a finger

Fingerprints are impressions left on surfaces by the friction ridges on the finger of a human.[1] The matching of two fingerprints is among the most widely used and most reliable biometric techniques. Fingerprint matching considers only the obvious features of a fingerprint.[2]

The composition of fingerprints consists of water (95%-99%), as well as organic and inorganic constituents.[3] The organic component is made up of amino acids, proteins, glucose, lactase, urea, pyruvate, fatty acids and sterols.[3] Inorganic ions such as chloride, sodium, potassium and iron are also present. [3] Other contaminants such as oils found in cosmetics, drugs and their metabolites and food residues may be found in fingerprint residues. [4]

A friction ridge is a raised portion of the epidermis on the digits (fingers and toes), the palm of the hand or the sole of the foot, consisting of one or more connected ridge units of friction ridge skin.[5] These are sometimes known as "epidermal ridges" which are caused by the underlying interface between the dermal papillae of the dermis and the interpapillary (rete) pegs of the epidermis. These unique features are formed at around the 15th week of fetal development and remain with us until after death when decomposition begins.[5] During the development of the fetus, around the 13th week of a pregnancy, ledge-like formation is formed at the bottom of the epidermis beside the dermis.[5] The cells along these ledges begin to rapidly proliferate.[5] This rapid proliferation forms primary and secondary ridges.[5] Both the primary and secondary ridges act as a template for the outer layer of the skin to form the friction ridges seen on the surface of the skin.

[5]

These epidermal ridges serve to amplify vibrations triggered, for example, when fingertips brush across an uneven surface, better transmitting the signals to sensory nerves involved in fine texture perception.[6] These ridges may also assist in gripping rough surfaces and may improve surface contact in wet conditions.[7]

Genetics[edit]

Consensus within the scientific community suggests that the dermatoglyphic patterns on fingertips are hereditary.[8] The fingerprint patterns between monozygotic twins have been shown to be very similar, whereas dizygotic twins have considerably less similarity.[8] Significant heritability has been identified for 12 dermatoglyphic characteristics.[9] Current models of dermatoglyphic trait inheritance suggest Mendelian transmission with additional effects from either additive or dominant major genes.[10]

Whereas genes determine the general characteristics of patterns and their type, the presence of environmental factors result in the slight differentiation of each fingerprint. However, the relative influences of genetic and environmental effects on fingerprint patterns are generally unclear. One study has suggested that roughly 5% of the total variability is due to small environmental effects, although this was only performed using total ridge count as a metric.[8] Several models of finger ridge formation mechanisms that lead to the vast diversity of fingerprints have been proposed. One model suggests that a buckling instability in the basal cell layer of the fetal epidermis is responsible for developing epidermal ridges.[11] Additionally, blood vessels and nerves may also serve a role in the formation of ridge configurations.[12] Another model indicates that changes in amniotic fluid surrounding each developing finger within the uterus cause corresponding cells on each fingerprint to grow in different microenvironments.[13] For a given individual, these various factors affect each finger differently preventing two fingerprints from being identical while still retaining similar patterns.

It is important to note that the determination of fingerprint inheritance is made difficult by the vast diversity of phenotypes. Classification of a specific pattern is often subjective (lack of consensus on the most appropriate characteristic to measure quantitatively) which complicates analysis of dermatoglyphic patterns. Several modes of inheritance have been suggested and observed for various fingerprint patterns. Total fingerprint ridge count, a commonly used metric of fingerprint pattern size, has been suggested to have a polygenic mode of inheritance and is influenced by multiple additive genes.[8] This hypothesis has been challenged by other research, however, which indicates that ridge counts on individual fingers are genetically independent and lack evidence to support the existence of additive genes influencing pattern formation.[14] Another mode of fingerprint pattern inheritance suggests that the arch pattern on the thumb and on other fingers are inherited as an autosomal dominant trait.[15] Further research on the arch pattern has suggested that a major gene or multifactorial inheritance is responsible for arch pattern heritability.[16] A separate model for the development of the whorl pattern indicates that a single gene or group of linked genes contributes to its inheritance.[17] Furthermore, inheritance of the whorl pattern does not appear to be symmetric in that the pattern is seemingly randomly distributed among the ten fingers of a given individual.[17] In general, comparison of fingerprint patterns between left and right hands suggests an asymmetry in the effects of genes on fingerprint patterns, although this observation requires further analysis.[18]

In addition to proposed models of inheritance, specific genes have been implicated as factors in fingertip pattern formation (their exact mechanism of influencing patterns is still under research). Multivariate linkage analysis of finger ridge counts on individual fingers revealed linkage to chromosome 5q14.1 specifically for the ring, index, and middle fingers.[19] In mice, variants in the gene EVI1 were correlated with dermatoglyphic patterns.[20] EVI1 expression in humans does not directly influence fingerprint patterns but does affect limb and digit formation which in turn may play a role in influencing fingerprint patterns.[20] Genome-wide association studies found single nucleotide polymorphisms within the gene ADAMTS9-AS2 on 3p14.1, which appeared to have an influence on the whorl pattern on all digits.[21] This gene encodes antisense RNA which may inhibit ADAMTS9, which is expressed in the skin. A model of how genetic variants of ADAMTS9-AS2 directly influence whorl development has not yet been proposed.[21]

In February 2023 a study identified WNT, BMP and EDAR as signaling pathways regulating the formation of primary ridges on fingerprints, with the first two having an opposite relationship established by a Turing reaction-diffusion system.[22][23][24]

Classification systems[edit]

A fingerprint arch
A fingerprint loop
A fingerprint whorl
A fingerprint arch

Before computerization, manual filing systems were used in large fingerprint repositories.[25] A fingerprint classification system groups fingerprints according to their characteristics and therefore helps in the matching of a fingerprint against a large database of fingerprints. A query fingerprint that needs to be matched can therefore be compared with a subset of fingerprints in an existing database.[26] Early classification systems were based on the general ridge patterns, including the presence or absence of circular patterns, of several or all fingers. This allowed the filing and retrieval of paper records in large collections based on friction ridge patterns alone. The most popular systems used the pattern class of each finger to form a numeric key to assist lookup in a filing system. Fingerprint classification systems included the Roscher System, the Juan Vucetich System and the Henry Classification System. The Roscher System was developed in Germany and implemented in both Germany and Japan. The Vucetich System was developed in Argentina and implemented throughout South America. The Henry Classification System was developed in India and implemented in most English-speaking countries.[25]

In the Henry Classification System there are three basic fingerprint patterns: loop, whorl, and arch,[27] which constitute 60–65 percent, 30–35 percent, and 5 percent of all fingerprints respectively.[28] There are also more complex classification systems that break down patterns even further, into plain arches or tented arches,[25] and into loops that may be radial or ulnar, depending on the side of the hand toward which the tail points. Ulnar loops start on the pinky-side of the finger, the side closer to the ulna, the lower arm bone. Radial loops start on the thumb-side of the finger, the side closer to the radius. Whorls may also have sub-group classifications including plain whorls, accidental whorls, double loop whorls, peacock's eye, composite, and central pocket loop whorls.[25]

The system used by most experts, although complex, is similar to the Henry Classification System. It consists of five fractions, in which R stands for right, L for left, i for index finger, m for middle finger, t for thumb, r for ring finger and p(pinky) for little finger. The fractions are as follows:

Ri/Rt + Rr/Rm + Lt/Rp + Lm/Li + Lp/Lr

The numbers assigned to each print are based on whether or not they are whorls. A whorl in the first fraction is given a 16, the second an 8, the third a 4, the fourth a 2, and 0 to the last fraction. Arches and loops are assigned values of 0. Lastly, the numbers in the numerator and denominator are added up, using the scheme:

(Ri + Rr + Lt + Lm + Lp)/(Rt + Rm + Rp + Li + Lr)

A 1 is added to both top and bottom, to exclude any possibility of division by zero. For example, if the right ring finger and the left index finger have whorls, the fraction used is:

0/0 + 8/0 + 0/0 + 0/2 + 0/0 + 1/1

The resulting calculation is:

(0 + 8 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 1)/(0 + 0 + 0 + 2 + 0 + 1) = 9/3 = 3

Fingerprint identification[edit]

A fingerprint created by the friction ridge structure

Fingerprint identification, known as dactyloscopy,[29] Ridgeology,[30] or hand print identification, is the process of comparing two instances of friction ridge skin impressions (see Minutiae), from human fingers or toes, or even the palm of the hand or sole of the foot, to determine whether these impressions could have come from the same individual. The flexibility and the randomized formation of the friction ridges on skin means that no two finger or palm prints are ever exactly alike in every detail; even two impressions recorded immediately after each other from the same hand may be slightly different.[31] Fingerprint identification, also referred to as individualization, involves an expert, or an expert computer system operating under threshold scoring rules, determining whether two friction ridge impressions are likely to have originated from the same finger or palm (or toe or sole).

An intentional recording of friction ridges is usually made with black printer's ink rolled across a contrasting white background, typically a white card. Friction ridges can also be recorded digitally, usually on a glass plate, using a technique called Live Scan. A "latent print" is the chance recording of friction ridges deposited on the surface of an object or a wall. Latent prints are invisible to the naked eye, whereas "patent prints" or "plastic prints" are viewable with the unaided eye. Latent prints are often fragmentary and require the use of chemical methods, powder, or alternative light sources in order to be made clear. Sometimes an ordinary bright flashlight will make a latent print visible.

When friction ridges come into contact with a surface that will take a print, material that is on the friction ridges such as perspiration, oil, grease, ink, or blood, will be transferred to the surface. Factors which affect the quality of friction ridge impressions are numerous. Pliability of the skin, deposition pressure, slippage, the material from which the surface is made, the roughness of the surface, and the substance deposited are just some of the various factors which can cause a latent print to appear differently from any known recording of the same friction ridges. Indeed, the conditions surrounding every instance of friction ridge deposition are unique and never duplicated. For these reasons, fingerprint examiners are required to undergo extensive training. The scientific study of fingerprints is called dermatoglyphics.

Limitations and Implications in a Forensic Context[edit]

One of the main limitations of friction ridge impression evidence regarding the actual collection would be the surface environment, specifically talking about how porous the surface the impression is on.[32] With non-porous surfaces the residues of the impression will not be absorbed into the material of the surface, but could be smudged by another surface.[32] With porous surfaces, the residues of the impression will be absorbed into the surface.[32] With both resulting in either an impression of no value to examiners or the destruction of the friction ridge impressions.

In order for analysts to correctly positively identify friction ridge patterns and their features depends heavily on the clarity of the impression.[33][5] Therefore the analysis of friction ridges is limited by clarity.[33][5]

In a court context, many have argued that friction ridge identification and Ridgeology should be classified as opinion evidence and not as fact, therefore should be assessed as such.[34] Many have said that friction ridge identification is only legally admissible today because during the time when it was added to the legal system, the admissibility standards were quite low.[35] There are only a limited number of studies that have been conducted to help confirm the science behind this identification process.[5]

Capture and detection[edit]

Fingerprinting on Cadavers[edit]

The human skin itself, which is a regenerating organ until death, and environmental factors such as lotions and cosmetics, pose challenges when fingerprinting a human. Following the death of a human the skin dries and cools. Fingerprints of dead humans may be obtained during an autopsy.

The collection of fingerprints off of a cadaver can be done in varying ways and depends on the condition of the skin. In the case of cadaver in the later stages of decomposition with dried skin, analysts will boil the skin to recondition/rehydrate it, allowing for moisture to flow back into the skin and resulting in detail friction ridges.[36] Another, method that has been used in brushing a powder, such as baby powder over the tips of the fingers.[37] The powder will ebbed itself into the farrows of the friction ridges allowing for the lifted ridges to be seen.[37]

Article Draft[edit]

Lead[edit]

Article body[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Jude Hemanth & Valentina Emilia Balas, ed. (2018). Biologically Rationalized Computing Techniques For Image Processing Applications. Springer. p. 116. ISBN 978-3319613161.
  2. ^ Stan Z. Li (2009). Encyclopedia of Biometrics: I–Z Volume 2. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 439. ISBN 978-0387730028.
  3. ^ a b c Cadd, Samuel; Islam, Meez; Manson, Peter; Bleay, Stephen (2015-07-01). "Fingerprint composition and aging: A literature review". Science & Justice. 55 (4): 219–238. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2015.02.004. ISSN 1355-0306. PMID 26087870.
  4. ^ Khare, Vartika; Singla, Anu (2022-01-27). "A review on the advancements in chemical examination of composition of latent fingerprint residues". Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences. 12 (1): 6. doi:10.1186/s41935-021-00262-2. ISSN 2090-5939. S2CID 246292738. Archived from the original on February 3, 2023. Retrieved November 21, 2022.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h i Ashbaugh, David (1991). "Ridgeology" (PDF). Journal of Forensic Identification. 41 (1): 16–64.
  6. ^ Roberta Kwok (29 January 2009). "Fake finger reveals the secrets of touch". Nature. doi:10.1038/news.2009.68. Archived from the original on January 31, 2009. Retrieved January 30, 2009.
  7. ^ "Fingerprint grip theory rejected". BBC. 12 June 2009. Archived from the original on June 16, 2009. Retrieved June 16, 2009.
  8. ^ a b c d Hold, Sarah (1961). "Quantitative Genetics of Finger-Print Patterns". British Medical Bulletin. 17 (3): 247–250. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.bmb.a069917. PMID 13715551. Archived from the original on February 3, 2023. Retrieved May 9, 2022.
  9. ^ Machado, João Felipe; Fernandes, Paula Roquetti; Roquetti, Ricardo Wagner; Filho, José Fernandes (October 2010). "Digital Dermatoglyphic Heritability Differences as Evidenced by a Female Twin Study". Twin Research and Human Genetics. 13 (5): 482–489. doi:10.1375/twin.13.5.482. ISSN 1839-2628. PMID 20874471. S2CID 31990988. Archived from the original on May 9, 2022. Retrieved May 9, 2022.
  10. ^ Sengupta, M.; Karmakar, B. (2004-09-01). "Mode of inheritance of finger dermatoglyphic traits among Vaidyas of West Bengal, India". Annals of Human Biology. 31 (5): 526–540. doi:10.1080/03014460412331287164. ISSN 0301-4460. PMID 15739382. S2CID 11870062.
  11. ^ Kücken, Michael; Newell, Alan C. (2005-07-07). "Fingerprint formation". Journal of Theoretical Biology. 235 (1): 71–83. Bibcode:2005JThBi.235...71K. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2004.12.020. ISSN 0022-5193. PMID 15833314. Archived from the original on August 25, 2018. Retrieved May 9, 2022.
  12. ^ Kücken, Michael (2007-09-13). "Models for fingerprint pattern formation". Forensic Science International. 171 (2): 85–96. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2007.02.025. ISSN 0379-0738. PMID 17459625. Archived from the original on December 28, 2011. Retrieved May 9, 2022.
  13. ^ Jain, Anil K.; Prabhakar, Salil; Pankanti, Sharath (2002-11-01). "On the similarity of identical twin fingerprints". Pattern Recognition. 35 (11): 2653–2663. Bibcode:2002PatRe..35.2653J. doi:10.1016/S0031-3203(01)00218-7. ISSN 0031-3203.
  14. ^ Weninger, M.; Aue-Hauser, G.; Scheiber, V. (December 1976). "Total finger ridge-count and the polygenic hypothesis: a critique". Human Biology. 48 (4): 713–725. ISSN 0018-7143. PMID 1017815. Archived from the original on February 3, 2023. Retrieved May 9, 2022.
  15. ^ Slatis, H. M.; Katznelson, M. B.; Bonné-Tamir, B. (May 1976). "The inheritance of fingerprint patterns". American Journal of Human Genetics. 28 (3): 280–289. ISSN 0002-9297. PMC 1685016. PMID 1266855.
  16. ^ Reed, Terry; Viken, Richard J.; Rinehart, Shannon A. (2006-02-01). "High heritability of fingertip arch patterns in twin-pairs". American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A. 140A (3): 263–271. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.31086. ISSN 1552-4825. PMID 16411220. S2CID 25789636.
  17. ^ a b Yang, Xiao; Xiaojun, Jin; Yixuan, Zhou; Hui, Liu (2016-08-22). "Genetic rules for the dermatoglyphics of human fingertips and their role in spouse selection: a preliminary study". SpringerPlus. 5 (1): 1396. doi:10.1186/s40064-016-3072-x. ISSN 2193-1801. PMC 4993718. PMID 27610315. Archived from the original on February 3, 2023. Retrieved May 9, 2022.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  18. ^ Martin, N.G.; Eaves, L.J.; Loesch, D.Z. (1982-01-01). "A genetical analysis of covariation between finger ridge counts". Annals of Human Biology. 9 (6): 539–552. doi:10.1080/03014468200006061. ISSN 0301-4460. PMID 7181445.
  19. ^ Medland, Sarah E.; Loesch, Danuta Z.; Mdzewski, Bogdan; Zhu, Gu; Montgomery, Grant W.; Martin, Nicholas G. (2007-09-28). "Linkage Analysis of a Model Quantitative Trait in Humans: Finger Ridge Count Shows Significant Multivariate Linkage to 5q14.1". PLOS Genetics. 3 (9): 1736–1744. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.0030165. ISSN 1553-7404. PMC 1994711. PMID 17907812.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  20. ^ a b Li, Jinxi; Glover, James D.; Zhang, Haiguo; Peng, Meifang; Tan, Jingze; Mallick, Chandana Basu; Hou, Dan; Yang, Yajun; Wu, Sijie; Liu, Yu; Peng, Qianqian (2022-01-06). "Limb development genes underlie variation in human fingerprint patterns". Cell. 185 (1): 95–112.e18. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2021.12.008. ISSN 0092-8674. PMC 8740935. PMID 34995520.
  21. ^ a b Ho, Yvonne Y. W.; Evans, David M.; Montgomery, Grant W.; Henders, Anjali K.; Kemp, John P.; Timpson, Nicholas J.; Pourcain, Beate St; Heath, Andrew C.; Madden, Pamela A. F.; Loesch, Danuta Z.; McNevin, Dennis (2016-04-01). "Common Genetic Variants Influence Whorls in Fingerprint Patterns". Journal of Investigative Dermatology. 136 (4): 859–862. doi:10.1016/j.jid.2015.10.062. ISSN 0022-202X. PMC 4821365. PMID 27045867. Archived from the original on February 3, 2023. Retrieved May 9, 2022.
  22. ^ Glover, James D.; Sudderick, Zoe R.; Shih, Barbara Bo-Ju; Batho-Samblas, Cameron; Charlton, Laura; Krause, Andrew L.; Anderson, Calum; Riddell, Jon; Balic, Adam; Li, Jinxi; Klika, Václav; Woolley, Thomas E.; Gaffney, Eamonn A.; Corsinotti, Andrea; Anderson, Richard A. (2023-02-09). "The developmental basis of fingerprint pattern formation and variation". Cell. 186 (5): 940–956.e20. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2023.01.015. ISSN 0092-8674. PMID 36764291. S2CID 256701309.
  23. ^ "How fingerprints form was a mystery — until now". 2023-02-09. Retrieved 2023-02-15.
  24. ^ "Why don't identical twins have the same fingerprints? New study provides clues". 2023-02-09. doi:10.1126/science.adh0982. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  25. ^ a b c d Engert, Gerald J. (1964). "International Corner". Identification News. 14 (1).
  26. ^ Stan Z. Li (2009). Encyclopedia of Biometrics: I–Z Volume 2. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 439. ISBN 978-0387730028.
  27. ^ Henry, Edward R., Sir (1900). "Classification and Uses of Finger Prints" (PDF). London: George Rutledge & Sons, Ltd. Archived from the original (PDF) on 13 October 2006.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  28. ^ Ross, Arun; Shah, Jidnya; Jain, Anil K. (2007-04). "From Template to Image: Reconstructing Fingerprints from Minutiae Points". IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence. 29 (4): 544–560. doi:10.1109/TPAMI.2007.1018. ISSN 0162-8828. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  29. ^ Ashbaugh, David R. "Ridgeology" (PDF). Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Archived (PDF) from the original on May 23, 2013. Retrieved October 26, 2013.
  30. ^ Ashbaugh, David (1991). "Ridgeology" (PDF). Journal of Forensic Identification. 41 (1): 16–64.
  31. ^ Ashbaugh, David R. "Ridgeology" (PDF). Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Archived (PDF) from the original on May 23, 2013. Retrieved October 26, 2013.
  32. ^ a b c "Forensic Science - evidence-processing". dps.mn.gov. Retrieved 2023-04-05.
  33. ^ a b Hicklin, R. Austin; Buscaglia, JoAnn; Roberts, Maria Antonia (2013-03-10). "Assessing the clarity of friction ridge impressions". Forensic Science International. 226 (1): 106–117. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.12.015. ISSN 0379-0738.
  34. ^ Champod, Christophe (2015-08-05). "Fingerprint identification: advances since the 2009 National Research Council report". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 370 (1674): 20140259. doi:10.1098/rstb.2014.0259. ISSN 0962-8436. PMC 4581003. PMID 26101284.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link)
  35. ^ Yumpu.com. "Individualization Using Friction Skin Impressions: Scientifically ..." yumpu.com. Retrieved 2023-04-05.
  36. ^ "The Friction Ridge Identification Process", Fingerprints and Other Ridge Skin Impressions, CRC Press, pp. 29–54, 2004-04-27, ISBN 978-0-429-23299-2, retrieved 2023-04-06
  37. ^ a b Morgan, Lee O.; Johnson, Marty; Cornelison, Jered; Isaac, Carolyn; deJong, Joyce; Prahlow, Joseph A. (2018-07-19). "Two Novel Methods for Enhancing Postmortem Fingerprint Recovery from Mummified Remains". Journal of Forensic Sciences. 64 (2): 602–606. doi:10.1111/1556-4029.13876. ISSN 0022-1198.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nameless_and_unknown/Fingerprint&oldid=1148418337"