Literature DB >> 28273509

The factor of 10 in forensic DNA match probabilities.

Simone Gittelson1, Tamyra R Moretti2, Anthony J Onorato2, Bruce Budowle3, Bruce S Weir4, John Buckleton5.   

Abstract

An update was performed of the classic experiments that led to the view that profile probability assignments are usually within a factor of 10 of each other. The data used in this study consist of 15 Identifiler loci collected from a wide range of forensic populations. Following Budowle et al. [1], the terms cognate and non-cognate are used. The cognate database is the database from which the profiles are simulated. The profile probability assignment was usually larger in the cognate database. In 44%-65% of the cases, the profile probability for 15 loci in the non-cognate database was within a factor of 10 of the profile probability in the cognate database. This proportion was between 60% and 80% when the FBI and NIST data were used as the non-cognate databases. A second experiment compared the match probability assignment using a generalised database and recommendation 4.2 from NRC II (the 4.2 assignment) with a proxy for the matching proportion developed using subpopulation allele frequencies and the product rule. The findings support that the 4.2 assignment has a large conservative bias. These results are in agreement with previous research results. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Allele frequency; Database; Subpopulations; Weight of evidence

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28273509      PMCID: PMC7722394          DOI: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2017.02.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Genet        ISSN: 1872-4973            Impact factor:   4.882


  22 in total

1.  What is the magnitude of the subpopulation effect?

Authors:  James M Curran; John S Buckleton; Christopher M Triggs
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int       Date:  2003-07-29       Impact factor: 2.395

2.  Forensim: an open-source initiative for the evaluation of statistical methods in forensic genetics.

Authors:  Hinda Haned
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Genet       Date:  2010-05-05       Impact factor: 4.882

3.  How reliable is the sub-population model in DNA testimony?

Authors:  John S Buckleton; James M Curran; Simon J Walsh
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int       Date:  2006-03-10       Impact factor: 2.395

4.  The interpretation of single source and mixed DNA profiles.

Authors:  Duncan Taylor; Jo-Anne Bright; John Buckleton
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Genet       Date:  2013-06-28       Impact factor: 4.882

5.  Interpreting low template DNA profiles.

Authors:  David J Balding; John Buckleton
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Genet       Date:  2009-05-02       Impact factor: 4.882

6.  The effect of ethnic and racial population substructuring on the estimation of multi-locus fixed-bin VNTR RFLP genotype probabilities.

Authors:  J M Hartmann; B T Houlihan; R S Keister; E L Buse
Journal:  J Forensic Sci       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 1.832

7.  U.S. population data for 29 autosomal STR loci.

Authors:  Carolyn R Hill; David L Duewer; Margaret C Kline; Michael D Coble; John M Butler
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int Genet       Date:  2013-01-11       Impact factor: 4.882

8.  A reassessment of frequency estimates of PvuII-generated VNTR profiles in a Finnish, an Italian, and a general U.S. Caucasian database: no evidence for ethnic subgroups affecting forensic estimates.

Authors:  B Budowle; K L Monson; A M Giusti
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 11.025

9.  Validating TrueAllele® DNA mixture interpretation.

Authors:  Mark W Perlin; Matthew M Legler; Cara E Spencer; Jessica L Smith; William P Allan; Jamie L Belrose; Barry W Duceman
Journal:  J Forensic Sci       Date:  2011-08-09       Impact factor: 1.832

10.  Confidence interval of the likelihood ratio associated with mixed stain DNA evidence.

Authors:  Gary W Beecham; Bruce S Weir
Journal:  J Forensic Sci       Date:  2010-10-22       Impact factor: 1.832

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.