Literature DB >> 30176439

NIST interlaboratory studies involving DNA mixtures (MIX13): A modern analysis.

John S Buckleton1, Jo-Anne Bright2, Kevin Cheng2, Bruce Budowle3, Michael D Coble3.   

Abstract

MIX13 was an interlaboratory exercise directed by NIST in 2013. The goal of the exercise was to evaluate the general state of interpretation methods in use at the time across the forensic community within the US and Canada and to measure the consistency in mixture interpretation. The findings were that there was a large variation in analysts' interpretations between and within laboratories. Within this work, we sought to evaluate the same mock mixture cases analyzed in MIX13 but with a more current view of the state-of-the-science. Each of the five cases were analyzed using the Identifiler™ multiplex and interpreted with the combined probability of inclusion, CPI, and four different modern probabilistic genotyping systems. Cases 1-4 can be interpreted without difficulty by any of the four PG systems examined. Cases 1 and 4 could also be interpreted successfully with the CPI by assuming two donors. Cases 2 and 3 cannot be interpreted successfully with the CPI because of potential of allele dropout. Case 3 demonstrated the need to consider relevant background information before interpretation of the profile. This case does not show that there is some barrier to interpretation caused by relatedness beyond the increased allelic overlap that can occur. Had this profile been of better template it might have been interpreted using the CPI despite the (potential) relatedness of contributors. Case 5 suffers from over-engineering. It is unclear whether reference 5C, a non-donor, can be excluded by manual methods. Inclusion of reference 5C should be termed an adventitious match not a false inclusion. Beyond this statement this case does not contribute to the interlaboratory study of analyst/laboratory interpretation method performance, instead, it explores the limits of DNA analysis. Taken collectively the analysis of these five cases demonstrates the benefits of changing from CPI to a PG system.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Collaborative exercise; DNA mixture; Forensic DNA; Interlaboratory study; MIX13; Mixture interpretation

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30176439     DOI: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.08.014

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


  5 in total

1.  Optical tweezers as an effective tool for spermatozoa isolation from mixed forensic samples.

Authors:  Nicole Auka; Michael Valle; Bobby D Cox; Peter D Wilkerson; Tracey Dawson Cruz; Joseph E Reiner; Sarah J Seashols-Williams
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-02-07       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 2.  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

Review 3.  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

Review 4.  DNA Transfer in Forensic Science: Recent Progress towards Meeting Challenges.

Authors:  Roland A H van Oorschot; Georgina E Meakin; Bas Kokshoorn; Mariya Goray; Bianca Szkuta
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2021-11-07       Impact factor: 4.096

5.  Tigers, black swans, and unicorns: The need for feedback and oversight.

Authors:  Max M Houck
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int       Date:  2019-04-17       Impact factor: 2.395

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.