Estimating the number of contributors to two-, three-, and four-person mixtures containing DNA in high template and low template amounts

Croatian Medical Journal

Volumn 52, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 314-326

  Perez, Jaheida ^a   Mitchell, Adele A ^a   Ducasse, Nubia ^a   Tamariz, Jeannie ^a   Caragine, Theresa ^a  

^a CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DNA;

AFRICAN AMERICAN; ALLELE; ARTICLE; ASIAN; BLOOD SAMPLING; CAUCASIAN; DNA DETERMINATION; DNA REPLICATION; DNA TEMPLATE; ETHNICITY; GENE AMPLIFICATION; GENE LOCUS; HISPANIC; HUMAN; NORMAL HUMAN; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SEPARATION TECHNIQUE;

ALLELES; DNA; ETHNIC GROUPS; GENE AMPLIFICATION; HUMANS; MICROSATELLITE REPEATS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; UNITED STATES;

EID: 80051947043     PISSN: 03539504     EISSN: 13328166     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3325/cmj.2011.52.314     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Evett IW, Gill PD, Lambert JA. Taking account of peak areas when interpreting mixed DNA profiles. J Forensic Sci. 1998;43:62-9.
2. Gill P, Sparkes R, Pinchin R, Clayton T, Whitaker J, Buckleton J. Interpreting simple STR mixtures using peak areas. Forensic Sci Int. 1998;91:41-53.
3. Perlin MW, Szabady B. Linear mixture analysis: a mathematical approach to resolving mixed DNA samples. J Forensic Sci. 2001;46:1372-8.
4. Wang T, Xue N, Douglas Birdwell J. Least squares deconvolution: a framework for interpreting short tandem repeat mixtures. J Forensic Sci. 2006;51:1284-97.
5. Cowell RG, Lauritzen S, Mortera J. Identification and separation of DNA mixtures using peak height area. Forensic Sci Int. 2007;166:28-34.
6. Buckleton JS, Triggs CM, Walsh SJ. Forensic DNA Evidence Interpretation. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 2005.
7. Balding DJ. Weight-of-evidence for forensic DNA profiles. Chichester (UK): John Wiley and Sons; 2005.
8. Budowle B, Onorato AJ, Callaghan TF, Della Manna A, Gross AM, Guerrieri RA, et al. Mixture interpretation: defining the relevant features for guidelines for the assessment of mixed DNA profiles in forensic casework. J Forensic Sci. 2009;54:810-21.
9. SWGDAM interpretation guidelines for autosomal STR typing by forensic DNA testing laboratories. Available from: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/codis/swgdam-interpretation-guidelines. Accessed: June 7, 2011.
10. Paoletti DR, Doom TE, Krane CM, Raymer ML, Krane DE. Empirical analysis of the STR profiles resulting from conceptual mixtures. J Forensic Sci. 2005;50:1361-6.
11. Buckleton JS, Curran JM, Gill P. Towards understanding the effect of uncertainty in the number of contributors to DNA stains. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2007;1:20-8.
12. Weir BS. DNA statistics in the Simpson matter. Nat Genet. 1995;11:365-8. Medline:7493014 doi:10.1038/ng1295-365
13. Brenner CH, Fimmers R, Baur MP. Likelihood ratios for mixed stains when the number of donors cannot be agreed. Int J Legal Med. 1996;109:218-9.
14. Buckleton JS, Evett IW, Weir BS. Setting bounds for the likelihood ratio when multiple hypotheses are postulated. Sci Justice. 1998;38:23-6.
15. Lauritzen SL, Mortera J. Bounding the number of contributors to mixed DNA samples. Forensic Sci Int. 2002;130:125-6.
16. Egeland T, Dalen I, Mostad PF. Estimating the number of contributors to a DNA profile. Int J Legal Med. 2003;117:271-5.
17. H aned H, Pene L, Lobry JR, Dufour AB, Pontier D. Estimating the number of contributors to forensic DNA mixtures: does maximum likelihood perform better than maximum allele count? J Forensic Sci. 2011;56:23-8.
18. Haned H, Pene L, Sauvage F, Pontier D. The predictive value of the maximum likelihood estimator of the number of contributors to a DNA mixture. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2011;5:281-4.
19. Caragine T, Mikulasovich R, Tamariz J, Bajda E, Sebestyen J, Baum H, et al. Validation of testing and interpretation protocols for Low Template DNA analysis using AmplFister Identifiler. Croat Med J. 2009;50:250-67.
20. U.S. Census Bureau delivers New York's 2010 Census population totals. Available from: http://2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11-cn122.html. Accessed: June 7, 2011.
21. Prinz M, Schiffner L, Sebestyen JA, Bajda E, Tamariz J, Shaler RC, et al. Maximization of STR DNA typing success for touched objects. Int Congr Ser. 2006;1288:651-3.
22. Schiffner LA, Bajda E, Sebestyen J. Prinz, M, Caragine T. Optimization of a simple, automatable extraction method to recover sufficient DNA from low copy number DNA samples for generation of STR profiles. Croat Med J. 2005;46:578-86.
23. Nicklas JA, Buel E. Development of an Alu-based, real-time PCR method for quantitation of human DNA in forensic samples. J Forensic Sci. 2003;48:936-44.
24. Gill P. Application of low copy number DNA profiling. Croat Med J. 2001;42:229-32.
25. Gill P, Whitaker J, Flaxman C, Brown N, Buckleton J. An investigation of the rigor of interpretation rules for STRs derived from less than 100 pg of DNA. Forensic Sci Int. 2000;112:17-40.
26. Kloosterman AD, Kersbergen P. Efficacy and limits of genotyping low copy number DNA samples by multiplex PCR of STR loci. J Soc Biol. 2003;197:351-9.
27. Farmen RK, Jagho R, Cortez P, Froyland ES. Assessement of individual shedder status and implication for secondary DNA transfer. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series. 2008;1:415-7.
28. Gill P, Kirkham A, Curran J. LoComatioN: a software tool for the analysis of low copy number DNA profiles. Forensic Sci Int. 2007;166:128-38.
29. Gill P, Curran J, Neumann C, Kirkham A, Clayton T, Whitaker J, et al. Interpretation of complex DNA profiles using empirical models and a method to measure their robustness. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2008;2:91-103.
30. Balding DJ, Buckleton J. Interpretating low template DNA profiles. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2009;4:1-10.