Literature DB >> 29367014

Internal validation of STRmix™ - A multi laboratory response to PCAST.

Jo-Anne Bright1, Rebecca Richards2, Maarten Kruijver2, Hannah Kelly2, Catherine McGovern2, Alan Magee3, Andrew McWhorter4, Anne Ciecko5, Brian Peck6, Chase Baumgartner7, Christina Buettner8, Scott McWilliams8, Claire McKenna9, Colin Gallacher10, Ben Mallinder10, Darren Wright11, Deven Johnson12, Dorothy Catella13, Eugene Lien14, Craig O'Connor14, George Duncan15, Jason Bundy16, Jillian Echard17, John Lowe18, Joshua Stewart19, Kathleen Corrado20, Sheila Gentile20, Marla Kaplan21, Michelle Hassler22, Naomi McDonald23, Paul Hulme24, Rachel H Oefelein25, Shawn Montpetit26, Melissa Strong26, Sarah Noël27, Simon Malsom28, Steven Myers29, Susan Welti30, Tamyra Moretti31, Teresa McMahon32, Thomas Grill33, Tim Kalafut34, MaryMargaret Greer-Ritzheimer35, Vickie Beamer36, Duncan A Taylor37, John S Buckleton38.   

Abstract

We report a large compilation of the internal validations of the probabilistic genotyping software STRmix™. Thirty one laboratories contributed data resulting in 2825 mixtures comprising three to six donors and a wide range of multiplex, equipment, mixture proportions and templates. Previously reported trends in the LR were confirmed including less discriminatory LRs occurring both for donors and non-donors at low template (for the donor in question) and at high contributor number. We were unable to isolate an effect of allelic sharing. Any apparent effect appears to be largely confounded with increased contributor number.
Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Continuous models; Forensic DNA; PCAST; Probabilistic genotyping; STRmix; Validation

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29367014     DOI: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.01.003

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


  8 in total

1.  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

2.  RE: Efficacy and Safety of Radiofrequency Ablation for Benign Thyroid Nodules: A Prospective Multicenter Study.

Authors:  Qi Di
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2018-04-06       Impact factor: 3.500

Review 3.  Interpol review of forensic biology and forensic DNA typing 2016-2019.

Authors:  John M Butler; Sheila Willis
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int       Date:  2020-02-20       Impact factor: 2.395

4.  Revisiting single cell analysis in forensic science.

Authors:  Davis R L Watkins; Dan Myers; Hannah E Xavier; Michael A Marciano
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-03-29       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 5.  A Review of Probabilistic Genotyping Systems: EuroForMix, DNAStatistX and STRmix™.

Authors:  Peter Gill; Corina Benschop; John Buckleton; Øyvind Bleka; Duncan Taylor
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2021-09-30       Impact factor: 4.096

6.  Internal Validation of MaSTR™ Probabilistic Genotyping Software for the Interpretation of 2-5 Person Mixed DNA Profiles.

Authors:  Michael S Adamowicz; Taylor N Rambo; Jennifer L Clarke
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-11       Impact factor: 4.141

7.  Probabilistic Genotyping of Single Cell Replicates from Mixtures Involving First-Degree Relatives Prevents the False Inclusions of Non-Donor Relatives.

Authors:  Kaitlin Huffman; Jack Ballantyne
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2022-09-15       Impact factor: 4.141

8.  Efficient DNA Sampling in Burglary Investigations.

Authors:  Colin Charles Tièche; Markus Dubach; Martin Zieger
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2021-12-23       Impact factor: 4.096

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.