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) |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 228 |
Number of pages | 1 |
Journal | Forensic science international |
Volume | 267 |
DOIs |
|
State | Published - Oct 1 2016 |
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Pathology and Forensic Medicine