Literature DB >> 17209918

Run-specific limits of detection and quantitation for STR-based DNA testing.

Jason R Gilder1, Travis E Doom, Keith Inman, Dan E Krane.   

Abstract

STR-based DNA profiling is an exceptionally sensitive analytical technique that is often used to obtain results at the very limits of its sensitivity. The challenge of reliably distinguishing between signal and noise in such situations is one that has been rigorously addressed in numerous other analytical disciplines. However, an inability to determine accurately the height of electropherogram baselines has caused forensic DNA profiling laboratories to utilize alternative approaches. Minimum thresholds established during laboratory validation studies have become the de facto standard for distinguishing between reliable signal and noise/technical artifacts. These minimum peak height thresholds generally fail to consider variability in the sensitivity of instruments, reagents, and the skill of human analysts involved in the DNA profiling process over the course of time. Software (BatchExtract) made publicly available by the National Center for Biotechnology Information now provides an alternative means of establishing limits of detection and quantitation that is more consistent with those used in other analytical disciplines. We have used that software to determine the height of each data collection point for each dye along a control sample's electropherogram trace. These values were then used to determine a limit of detection (the average amount of background noise plus three standard deviations) and a limit of quantitation (the average amount of background noise plus 10 standard deviations) for each control sample. Analyses of the electropherogram data associated with the positive, negative, and reagent blank controls included in 50 different capillary electrophoresis runs validate that this approach could be used to determine run-specific thresholds objectively for use in forensic DNA casework.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17209918     DOI: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00318.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Forensic Sci        ISSN: 0022-1198            Impact factor:   1.832


  7 in total

1.  Male DNA under female fingernails after scratching: transfer and persistence evaluation by RT-PCR analysis and Y-STR typing.

Authors:  Alessandra Iuvaro; Carla Bini; Silvia Dilloo; Stefania Sarno; Susi Pelotti
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2018-04-17       Impact factor: 2.686

2.  An information gap in DNA evidence interpretation.

Authors:  Mark W Perlin; Alexander Sinelnikov
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-12-16       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Forensic trace DNA: a review.

Authors:  Roland Ah van Oorschot; Kaye N Ballantyne; R John Mitchell
Journal:  Investig Genet       Date:  2010-12-01

4.  A technique for setting analytical thresholds in massively parallel sequencing-based forensic DNA analysis.

Authors:  Brian Young; Jonathan L King; Bruce Budowle; Luigi Armogida
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-05-18       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  GITAD 2020: quality assurance test through 20 years of experience.

Authors:  Juan Carlos Álvarez; Christian Haarkötter; María Saiz; Xiomara Gálvez; María Isabel Medina-Lozano; José Antonio Lorente
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2022-02-22       Impact factor: 2.791

6.  Validation of reduced volume VeriFiler™ Express PCR Amplification Kit for buccal swab samples extracted using Prep-n-Go™ Buffer.

Authors:  Jessica Perry; Tasnim Munshi; Thomas Haizel; Sasitaran Iyavoo
Journal:  J Forensic Sci       Date:  2022-06-23       Impact factor: 1.717

7.  Lab Retriever: a software tool for calculating likelihood ratios incorporating a probability of drop-out for forensic DNA profiles.

Authors:  Keith Inman; Norah Rudin; Ken Cheng; Chris Robinson; Adam Kirschner; Luke Inman-Semerau; Kirk E Lohmueller
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2015-09-18       Impact factor: 3.169

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.