Literature DB >> 21827458

Validating TrueAllele® DNA mixture interpretation.

Mark W Perlin1, Matthew M Legler, Cara E Spencer, Jessica L Smith, William P Allan, Jamie L Belrose, Barry W Duceman.   

Abstract

DNA mixtures with two or more contributors are a prevalent form of biological evidence. Mixture interpretation is complicated by the possibility of different genotype combinations that can explain the short tandem repeat (STR) data. Current human review simplifies this interpretation by applying thresholds to qualitatively treat STR data peaks as all-or-none events and assigning allele pairs equal likelihood. Computer review, however, can work instead with all the quantitative data to preserve more identification information. The present study examined the extent to which quantitative computer interpretation could elicit more identification information than human review from the same adjudicated two-person mixture data. The base 10 logarithm of a DNA match statistic is a standard information measure that permits such a comparison. On eight mixtures having two unknown contributors, we found that quantitative computer interpretation gave an average information increase of 6.24 log units (min = 2.32, max = 10.49) over qualitative human review. On eight other mixtures with a known victim reference and one unknown contributor, quantitative interpretation averaged a 4.67 log factor increase (min = 1.00, max = 11.31) over qualitative review. This study provides a general treatment of DNA interpretation methods (including mixtures) that encompasses both quantitative and qualitative review. Validation methods are introduced that can assess the efficacy and reproducibility of any DNA interpretation method. An in-depth case example highlights 10 reasons (at 10 different loci) why quantitative probability modeling preserves more identification information than qualitative threshold methods. The results validate TrueAllele(®) DNA mixture interpretation and establish a significant information improvement over human review.
© 2011 American Academy of Forensic Sciences.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21827458     DOI: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01859.x

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


  26 in total

1.  Evaluation of mixed-source, low-template DNA profiles in forensic science.

Authors:  David J Balding
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-07-01       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Towards developing forensically relevant single-cell pipelines by incorporating direct-to-PCR extraction: compatibility, signal quality, and allele detection.

Authors:  Nidhi Sheth; Harish Swaminathan; Amanda J Gonzalez; Ken R Duffy; Catherine M Grgicak
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2021-01-23       Impact factor: 2.686

3.  The factor of 10 in forensic DNA match probabilities.

Authors:  Simone Gittelson; Tamyra R Moretti; Anthony J Onorato; Bruce Budowle; Bruce S Weir; John Buckleton
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Genet       Date:  2017-02-16       Impact factor: 4.882

Review 4.  Separation/extraction, detection, and interpretation of DNA mixtures in forensic science (review).

Authors:  Ruiyang Tao; Shouyu Wang; Jiashuo Zhang; Jingyi Zhang; Zihao Yang; Xiang Sheng; Yiping Hou; Suhua Zhang; Chengtao Li
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2018-05-25       Impact factor: 2.686

5.  Simplification of complex DNA profiles using front end cell separation and probabilistic modeling.

Authors:  Nancy A Stokes; Cristina E Stanciu; Emily R Brocato; Christopher J Ehrhardt; Susan A Greenspoon
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Genet       Date:  2018-07-17       Impact factor: 4.882

6.  Evaluating Mixture Solution™- rapid and non-MCMC probabilistic mixture analysis.

Authors:  Anton Lucassen; Karen Ehlers; Paul J Grobler; Charles H Brenner
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2021-10-01       Impact factor: 2.686

7.  Use of hormone-specific antibody probes for differential labeling of contributor cell populations in trace DNA mixtures.

Authors:  Jennifer M Miller; Christin Lee; Sarah Ingram; Vamsi K Yadavalli; Susan A Greenspoon; Christopher J Ehrhardt
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2022-09-09       Impact factor: 2.791

8.  Four model variants within a continuous forensic DNA mixture interpretation framework: Effects on evidential inference and reporting.

Authors:  Harish Swaminathan; Muhammad O Qureshi; Catherine M Grgicak; Ken Duffy; Desmond S Lun
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-11-20       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Response to Grisedale and Van Daal: comparison of STR profiling from low template DNA extracts with and without the consensus profiling method.

Authors:  Bas Kokshoorn; Bart J Blankers
Journal:  Investig Genet       Date:  2013-01-03

10.  Comment on Kokshoorn, B, and Blankers, BJ 'Response to Grisedale, KS and van Daal, A: comparison of STR profiling from low template DNA extracts with and without the consensus profiling method'.

Authors:  Kelly Grisedale; Angela van Daal
Journal:  Investig Genet       Date:  2013-01-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.