Validation of software for calculating the likelihood ratio for parentage and kinship

Forensic Science International: Genetics

Volumn 3, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 112-118

  Drabek J ^a  

^a PALACKÝ UNIVERSITY   (Czech Republic)

Author keywords

Forensic DNA typing; Likelihood ratio; Parentage; Paternity; Software; Validation

Indexed keywords

ALLELE; ARTICLE; BIOENGINEERING; BIOMEDICINE; CALIBRATION; COMPUTER PROGRAM; FORENSIC GENETICS; FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION; GENE MUTATION; GUILT; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; PATERNITY TEST; PEER REVIEW; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; VALIDATION STUDY;

EID: 59649090636     PISSN: 18724973     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2008.11.005     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Brenner C.H. How to Solve Any Kinship Problem by Hand [Online] (2004). http://dna-view.com/index.html pp. 1-4
2. Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (SWGDAM). Revised Validation Guidelines (2003) pp. 1-6
3. Advisory Board D.N.A. Quality assurance standards for forensic DNA testing laboratories. July 1998. Forensic Sci. Commun. 2 (2000) 1-15
4. Barker R., and Wichmann B. Guidance for accredited laboratories on the use of computers. Accredit. Qual. Assur. 5 (2000) 287-288
5. Crumpler S., Cheng J., Tillman D.-B., Benesch B., Sawyer D., Murray J., Press H., Snipes C., Godziemski A., Bergeson D., and Loreng J. General Principles Of Software Validation; Final Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff, version 2.0 (2002) pp. 1-47
6. Gjertson D.W., Brenner C.H., Baur M.P., Carracedo A., Guidet F., Luque J.A., Lessig R., Mayr W.R., Pascali V.L., Prinz M., Schneider P.M., and Morling N. ISFG: recommendations on biostatistics in paternity testing. Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 1 (2007) 223-231
7. Green J.M. A practical guide to analytical method validation. Anal. Chem. 68 (1996) A305-A309
8. Huber L. Qualification and validation of software and computer systems in laboratories-Part 2: qualification of vendors. Accredit. Qual. Assur. 3 (1998) 2-5
9. Huber L. Qualification and validation of software and computer systems in laboratories-Part 3: installation and operational qualification. Accredit. Qual. Assur. 3 (1998) 140-144
10. Huber L. Qualification and validation of software and computer systems in laboratories-Part 4: evaluation and validation of existing systems. Accredit. Qual. Assur. 3 (1998) 317-321
11. Hattacharya S., and Kanjilal A. Code based analysis for object-oriented systems. J. Comput. Sci. Technol. 21 (2006) 965-972
12. Marks D.M. Testing Very Big Systems (1992), McGraw-Hill, The United States of America
13. Brenner C.H. A note on paternity computation in cases lacking a mother. Transfusion 33 (1993) 51-54
14. Ayres K.L. Relatedness testing in subdivided populations. Forensic Sci. Int. 114 (2000) 107-115
15. Huber L., and Wiederoder H. Qualification and validation of software and computer systems in laboratories-Part 1: validation during development. Accredit. Qual. Assur. 2 (1997) 360-366
16. Brenner C., and Staub R.W. Can DNA solve this? Poster presented at the 14th International Symposium on Human Identification. Phoenix, AZ, September 30-October 2 (2003) 1-2
17. Blouin M.S. DNA-based methods for pedigree reconstruction and kinship analysis in natural populations. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18 (2003) 503-511
18. Kalinowski S.T., Taper M.L., and Marshall T.C. Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Mol. Ecol. 16 (2007) 1099-1106
19. Cole J.B. PyPedal: a computer program for pedigree analysis. Comput. Electron. Agric. 57 (2007) 107-113
20. Gerber S., Chabrier P., and Kremer A. FAMOZ: a software for parentage analysis using dominant, codominant and uniparentally inherited markers. Mol. Ecol. Notes 3 (2003) 479-481
21. Sefc K.M., Lopes M.S., Lefort F., Botta R., Roubelakis-Angelakis K.A., Ibanez J., Pejic I., Wagner H.W., Glossl J., and Steinkellner H. Microsatellite variability in grapevine cultivars from different European regions and evaluation of assignment testing to assess the geographic origin of cultivars. Theor. Appl. Genet. 100 (2000) 498-505
22. Konovalov D.A., Manning C., and Henshaw M.T. KINGROUP: a program for pedigree relationship reconstruction and kin group assignments using genetic markers. Mol. Ecol. Notes 4 (2004) 779-782
23. Ritland K. Extensions of models for the estimation of mating systems using on independent loci. Heredity 88 (2002) 221-228
24. Rocheta M., Dionisio F.M., Fonseca L., and Pires A.M. Paternity analysis in Excel. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 88 (2007) 234-238
25. Cowell R.G. FINEX: a Probabilistic expert system for forensic identification. Forensic Sci. Int. 134 (2003) 196-206
26. Egeland T., Mostad P.F., Mevag B., and Stenersen M. Beyond traditional paternity and identification cases. Selecting the most probable pedigree. Forensic Sci. Int. 110 (2000) 47-59
27. Dajda T., and Jung M. LR-calculation of any kinship situation using a new graphical interface: generate two or more hypotheses, draw the family trees and assign the DNA-profiles to person symbols. ICS 1288 (2006) 474-476
28. Phillips C., Fondevila M., García-Magarinos M., Rodriguez A., Salas A., Carracedo A., and Lareu M.V. Resolving relationship tests that show ambiguous STR results using autosomal SNPs as supplementary markers. Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2 (2008) 198-204
29. A.B. Hepler, Improving forensic identification using Bayesian networks and relatedness estimation: allowing for population substructure. Ph.D. Thesis. North Carolina State University, Department of Statistics, Raleigh, 2005.
30. Brenner C., and Morris J.W. Paternity index calculations in single locus hypervariable DNA probes: validation and other studies. Proceedings for the International Symposium on Human Identification 1989 (1990), Promega Corp 21-53
31. Berent J. [DNAStat, version 1.2-a software package for processing genetic profile databases and biostatistical calculations]. Arch. Med. Sadowej Kryminol. 57 (2007) 322-325
32. Brenner C.H. Symbolic kinship program [published erratum appears in Genetics 147 (September (1)) (1997) following 398]. Genetics 145 (1997) 535-542
33. Fung W.K. User-friendly programs for easy calculations in paternity testing and kinship determinations. Forensic Sci. Int. 136 (2003) 22-34
34. Riancho J.A., and Zarrabeitia M.T. A Windows-based software for common paternity and sibling analyses. Forensic Sci. Int. 135 (2003) 232-234
35. Krawczak M., and Bockel B. A genetic-factor model for the statistical-analysis of multilocus DNA fingerprints. Electrophoresis 13 (1992) 10-17
36. P. Linhart, Pravdepodobnost rodokmene a jeji pouziti v soudnim lekarstvi [Pedigree probability and its use in forensic medicine]. Bc. Thesis. Silesian University Opava, Faculty of Philosophy and Science, Institute of Informatics, 2001.
37. C. Brenner, Mutations in Paternity [Online], 2000, http://dna-view.com/mudisc.htm.
38. Dawid A.P., Mortera J., and Pascali V.L. Non-fatherhood or mutation? A probabilistic approach to parental exclusion in paternity testing. Forensic Sci. Int. 124 (2001) 55-61
39. Dawid A.P., Mortera J., Pascali V.L., and van Boxel D. Probabilistic expert systems for forensic inference from genetic markers. Scand. J. Stat. 29 (2002) 577-595