Validating trueallele ® dna mixture interpretation

Journal of Forensic Sciences

Volumn 56, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 1430-1447

  Perlin, Mark W ^a   Legler, Matthew M ^a   Spencer, Cara E ^a   Smith, Jessica L ^a   Allan, William P ^a   Belrose, Jamie L ^b   Duceman, Barry W ^c  

^a Cybergenetics Corp   (United States)

^b STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^c New York State Police Forensic Investigation Center   (United States)

Author keywords

Bayesian model; DNA mixture interpretation; Expert system; Forensic science; Genotype; Likelihood ratio; MCMC computation; Quantitative data; STR analysis; Validation study

Indexed keywords

DNA; MICROSATELLITE DNA;

ALLELE; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DNA FINGERPRINTING; GENETICS; GENOTYPE; HUMAN; STATISTICAL MODEL; VALIDATION STUDY;

ALLELES; BAYES THEOREM; DNA; DNA FINGERPRINTING; GENOTYPE; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MICROSATELLITE REPEATS; SOFTWARE;

EID: 80055119340     PISSN: 00221198     EISSN: 15564029     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01859.x     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Evett IW, Weir BS. Interpreting DNA evidence: statistical genetics for forensic scientists. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Assoc, 1998.
2. Perlin MW. Simple reporting of complex DNA evidence: automated computer interpretation. Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Symposium on Human Identification; 2003 Sept 30-Oct 3; Phoenix, AZ. Promega, 2003, (accessed June 11, 2011).
3. Budowle B, Onorato AJ, Callaghan TF, Manna AD, 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(4):810-21.
4. Thompson WC. Painting the target around the matching profile: the Texas sharpshooter fallacy in forensic DNA interpretation. Law, Probability and Risk 2009;8(3):257-76.
5. Butler JM, Kline MC. NIST mixture interpretation interlaboratory study 2005 (MIX05). Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Symposium on Human Identification; 2005 Sept 26-29; Grapevine, TX. Promega, 2005, (accessed June 11, 2011).
6. Curran J. A MCMC method for resolving two person mixtures. Sci Justice 2008;48(4):168-77.
7. Perlin MW, Kadane JB, Cotton RW. Match likelihood ratio for uncertain genotypes. Law, Probability and Risk 2009;8(3):289-302.
8. Perlin MW, Sinelnikov A. An information gap in DNA evidence interpretation. PLoS ONE 2009;4(12):e8327.
9. Balding DJ, Buckleton J. Interpreting low template DNA profiles. Forensic Sci Int Genet 2009;4(1):1-10.
10. Gill P, Brenner CH, Buckleton JS, Carracedo A, Krawczak M, Mayr WR, et al. DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: recommendations on the interpretation of mixtures. Forensic Sci Int 2006;160:90-101.
11. Budowle B, Eisenberg A, van Daal A. Validity of low copy number typing and applications to forensic science. Croat Med J 2009;50(3):207-17.
12. Good IJ. Probability and the weighing of evidence. London, UK: Griffin, 1950.
13. Perlin MW. Scientific validation of mixture interpretation methods. Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Symposium on Human Identification; 2006 Oct 10-12; Nashville, TN. Promega, 2006, (accessed June 11, 2011).
14. Feller W. An introduction to probability theory and its applications, 3rd edn. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1968.
15. O'Hagan A, Forster J. Bayesian inference, 2nd edn. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 2004.
16. Gill P, Sparkes R, Pinchin R, Clayton TM, Whitaker JP, Buckleton J. Interpreting simple STR mixtures using allele peak area. Forensic Sci Int 1998;91:41-53.
17. Perlin MW, Lancia G, Ng S-K. Toward fully automated genotyping: genotyping microsatellite markers by deconvolution. Am J Hum Genet 1995;57(5):1199-210.
18. Perlin MW, Szabady B. Linear mixture analysis: a mathematical approach to resolving mixed DNA samples. J Forensic Sci 2001;46(6):1372-7.
19. Cowell RG, Lauritzen SL, Mortera J. A gamma bayesian network for DNA mixture analysis. Bayesian Anal 2007;2(2):333-48.
20. Balding DJ, Nichols RA. DNA profile match probability calculation: how to allow for population stratification, relatedness, database selection and single bands. Forensic Sci Int 1994;64(2-3):125-40.
21. Buckleton J, Curran J. A discussion of the merits of random man not excluded and likelihood ratios. Forensic Sci Int Genet 2008;2(4):343-8.
22. Savage LJ. The foundations of statistics. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1954.
23. Stolovitzky G, Cecchi G. Efficiency of DNA replication in the polymerase chain reaction. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1996;23:12947-52.
24. Stenman J, Orpana A. Accuracy in amplification. Nat Biotechnol 2001;19(11):1011-2.
25. Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Rubin D. Bayesian data analysis. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 1995.
26. Hastings WK. Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications. Biometrika 1970;57:97-109.
27. Metropolis N, Rosenbluth AW, Rosenbluth MN, Teller AH, Teller E. Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines. J Chem Phys 1953;21(6):1087-92.
28. Bakker SC, Sinke RJ, Pearson PL. Differences in stutter intensities between microsatellites are related to length and sequence of the repeat. In: Bakker SC, editor. Unravelling the genetics of schizophrenia and ADHD. Utrecht, the Netherlands: University of Utrecht, 2005;81-94.
29. Aitken CG, Taroni F. Statistics and the evaluation of evidence for forensic scientists, 2nd edn. Chicester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2004.
30. Gilks WR, Richardson S, Spiegelhalter DJ, editors. Markov chain Monte Carlo in practice. London, UK: Chapman and Hall, 1996.
31. Gelman A, Rubin DB. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Stat Sci 1992;7(4):457-511.
32. Budowle B, Moretti T, Baumstark A, Defenbaugh D, Keys K. Population data on the thirteen CODIS core short tandem repeat loci in African Americans, U.S. Caucasians, Hispanics, Bahamians, Jamaicans, and Trinidadians. J Forensic Sci 1999;44(6):1277-86.
33. Cowell RG, Lauritzen SL, Mortera J. Probabilistic modelling for DNA mixture analysis. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl 2008;1(1):640-2.
34. Faigman DL, Kaye DH, Saks MJ, Sanders J. Science in the law: standards, statistics, and research issues. St. Paul, MN: West Group, 2002.
35. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG. Statistical methods, 8th edn. Ames, IA: Iowa State University, 1989.
36. Scheffé H. The analysis of variance. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1959.
37. Kadane JB. Bayesian thought in early modern detective stories: Monsieur Lecoq, C. Auguste Dupin and Sherlock Holmes. Stat Sci 2009;24(2):238-43.
38. Curran JM, Buckleton J. Inclusion probabilities and dropout. J Forensic Sci 2010;55(5):1171-3.
39. National Research Council. Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2009.
40. Faigman DL, Kaye DH, Saks MJ, Sanders J. Science in the law: forensic science issues. St. Paul, MN: West Group, 2002.
41. DNA Advisory Board. Quality assurance standards for forensic DNA testing laboratories and for convicted offender DNA databasing laboratories. Forensic Sci Commun (FBI) 2000;2(3).
42. Krenke B, Tereba A, Anderson S, Buel E, Culhane S, Finis C, et al. Validation of a 16-locus fluorescent multiplex system. J Forensic Sci 2002;47(4):773-85.
43. Sgueglia J, Geiger S, Davis J. Precision studies using the ABI prism 3100 genetic analyzer for forensic DNA analysis. Anal Bioanal Chem 2003;376(8):1247-54.
44. Gill P, Curran J, Elliot K. A graphical simulation model of the entire DNA process associated with the analysis of short tandem repeat loci. Nucleic Acids Res 2005;33(2):632-43.
45. Orlando Roberts v. United States: District of Columbia Court of Appeals, February 15, 2007, (accessed June 11, 2011).
46. Heuch I, Li F. PEDIG-a computer program for calculation of genotype probabilities, using phenotypic information. Clin Genet 1972;3:501-4.
47. Bill MR, Gill P, Curran J, Clayton T, Pinchin R, Healy M, et al. PENDULUM-a guideline based approach to the interpretation of STR mixtures. Forensic Sci Int 2005;148(2-3):181-9.
48. Evett IW, Gill P, Lambert JA. Taking account of peak areas when interpreting mixed DNA profiles. J Forensic Sci 1998;43(1):62-9.
49. Varlaro J, Duceman B. Dealing with increasing casework demands for DNA analysis. Profiles in DNA 2002;5(2):3-6.
50. Budowle B, Chakraborty R, van Daal A. Authors' response to commentary by Gill and Buckleton. J Forensic Sci 2010;55(1):269-72.
51. Gill P, Buckleton J. Commentary on: Budowle B, Onorato AJ, Callaghan TF, Della Manna A, Gross AM, Guerrieri RA, Luttman JC, McClure DL. Mixture interpretation: defining the relevant features for guidelines for the assessment of mixed DNA profiles in forensic casework. J Forensic Sci 2009;54(4):810-21. J Forensic Sci 2010;55(1):265-8.
52. Budowle B. Authors' response to commentary by E. Krane, Simon Ford, Jason R. Gilder, Keith Inman, Allan Jamieson, Roger Koppl, Irving L. Kornfield, D. Michael Risinger, Norah Rudin, Marc Scott Taylor, William C. Thompson. J Forensic Sci 2010;55(1):275-6.
53. Budowle B, Bottrell M, Bunch S, Fram R, Harrison D, Meagher S, et al. A perspective on errors, bias, and interpretation in the forensic sciences and direction for continuing advancement. J Forensic Sci 2009;54(4):798-809.
54. Krane DE, Ford S, Gilder JR, Inman K, Jamieson A, Koppl R, et al. Sequential unmasking: a means of minimizing observer effects in forensic DNA interpretation. J Forensic Sci 2008;53(4):1006-7.
55. Krane DE, Ford S, Gilder JR, Inman K, Jamieson A, Koppl R, et al. Commentary on: Budowle B, Bottrell MC, Bunch SG, Fram R, Harrison D, Meagher S, Oien CT, Peterson PE, Seiger DP, Smith MB, Smrz MA, Soltis GL, Stacey RB. A perspective on errors, bias, and interpretation in the forensic sciences and direction for continuing advancement. J Forensic Sci 2009;54(4):798-809. J Forensic Sci 2010;55(1):273-4.
56. SWGDAM. Interpretation guidelines for autosomal STR typing by forensic DNA testing laboratories. Washington, DC: Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (SWGDAM), 2010.
57. Buckleton JS, Triggs CM, Walsh SJ, editors. Forensic DNA evidence interpretation. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2004.
58. Wang T, Xue N, Birdwell JD. Least-square deconvolution: a framework for interpreting short tandem repeat mixtures. J Forensic Sci 2006;51(6):1284-97.
59. Sisson SA. Genetics: genetics and stochastic simulation do mix! Am Stat 2007;61(2):112-9.
60. Thomas DC, Gauderman WJ. Gibbs sampling methods in genetics. In: Gilks W, Richardson S, Spiegelhalter D, editors. Markov chain Monte Carlo in practice. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall, 1995;419-40.