TrueAllele casework on Virginia DNA mixture evidence: Computer and manual interpretation in 72 reported criminal cases

PLoS ONE

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2014, Pages

  Perlin, Mark W ^a   Dormer, Kiersten ^a   Hornyak, Jennifer ^a   Schiermeier Wood, Lisa ^b   Greenspoon, Susan ^b  

^a Cybergenetics   (United States)

^b Department of Forensic Science ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; COMBINED PROBABILITY OF INCLUSION ALLELE INCLUSION; COMPUTER MODEL; COMPUTER SYSTEM; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DNA DETERMINATION; GENOTYPE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; METHODOLOGY; MODIFIED COMBINED PROBABILITY OF INCLUSION STOCHASTIC THRESHOLD; OFFENDER; RELIABILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TRUEALLELE CASEWORK; TRUEALLELE GENOTYPE MODELING; UNITED STATES; ALLELE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CRIMINAL LAW; DEVICES; FEMALE; FORENSIC GENETICS; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; MALE; PROCEDURES; THEORETICAL MODEL;

DNA;

ALLELES; AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING; CRIMINAL LAW; DNA; FEMALE; FORENSIC GENETICS; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, THEORETICAL; VIRGINIA;

EID: 84899875237     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092837     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Jeffreys AJ, Wilson V, Thein SC (1985) Individual-specific fingerprints of human DNA. Nature 316: 76-78.
2. Edwards A, Civitello A, Hammond H, Caskey C (1991) DNA typing and genetic mapping with trimeric and tetrameric tandem repeats. Am J Hum Genet 49: 746-756. (Pubitemid 21891721)
3. Schweitzer NJ, Saks MJ (2007) The CSI Effect: Popular fiction about forensic science affects the public's expectations about real forensic science. Jurimetrics 47: 357.
4. Kelly H, Bright JA, Curran J, Buckleton J (2012) The interpretation of low level DNA mixtures. Forensic Sci Int Genet 6: 191-197.
5. Weber J, May P (1989) Abundant class of human DNA polymorphisms which can be typed using the polymerase chain reaction. Am J Hum Genet 44: 388-396. (Pubitemid 19071233)
6. Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (SWGDAM) (2000) Short Tandem Repeat (STR) interpretation guidelines. Forensic Science Communications 2.
7. Perlin MW, Legler MM, Spencer CE, Smith JL, Allan WP, et al. (2011) Validating TrueAllele DNA mixture interpretation. J Forensic Sci 56: 1430-1447.
8. Gill P, Puch-Solis R, Curran J (2009) The low-template-DNA (stochastic) threshold - Its determination relative to risk analysis for national DNA databases. Forensic Science International: Genetics 3: 104-111.
9. Budowle B, Onorato AJ, Callaghan TF, Manna AD, Gross AM, et al. (2009) Mixture interpretation: defining the relevant features for guidelines for the assessment of mixed DNA profiles in forensic casework. J Forensic Sci 54: 810-821.
10. SWGDAM (2010) Interpretation guidelines for autosomal STR typing by forensic DNA testing laboratories.
11. Flaherty MP (2011) Virginia reevaluates DNA evidence in 375 cases. Washington Post. Washington, DC.
12. Perlin MW, Szabady B (2001) Linear mixture analysis: a mathematical approach to resolving mixed DNA samples. J Forensic Sci 46: 1372-1377.
13. Perlin MW, Sinelnikov A (2009) An information gap in DNA evidence interpretation. PLoS ONE 4: e8327.
14. Mortera J, Dawid AP, Lauritzen SL (2003) Probabilistic expert systems for DNA mixture profiling. Theoretical Population Biology 63: 191-205. (Pubitemid 38051017)
15. Cowell RG, Lauritzen SL, Mortera J (2007) Identification and separation of DNA mixtures using peak area information. Forensic Science International 166: 28-34. (Pubitemid 46162008)
16. Ballantyne J, Hanson EK, Perlin MW (2013) DNA mixture genotyping by probabilistic computer interpretation of binomially-sampled laser captured cell populations: Combining quantitative data for greater identification information. Sci Justice 53: 103-114.
17. Perlin MW, Belrose JL, Duceman BW (2013) New York State TrueAllele Casework validation study. J Forensic Sci 58: 1458-1466.
18. Greenspoon SA, Schiermeier-Wood L, Jenkins BA (2013) Pushing the limits of TrueAllele Casework: a validation study. manuscript in preparation.
19. Biology Program Manager (2011) Section VIII. Capillary electrophoretic detection PCR-based STR DNA protocol: PowerPlex 16 system. Forensic Biology Section Procedures Manual. Richmond, VA: Department of Forensic Science. pp.126.
20. Stolovitzky G, Cecchi G (1996) Efficiency of DNA replication in the polymerase chain reaction. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93: 12947-12952. (Pubitemid 26382749)
21. Krenke B, Tereba A, Anderson S, Buel E, Culhane S, et al. (2002) Validation of a 16-locus fluorescent multiplex system. J Forensic Sci 47: 773-785. (Pubitemid 34760903)
22. Evett IW, Weir BS (1998) Interpreting DNA Evidence: Statistical Genetics for Forensic Scientists. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Assoc.
23. Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Rubin D (1995) Bayesian Data Analysis. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
24. O'Hagan A, Forster J (2004) Bayesian Inference. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
25. Gilks WR, Richardson S, Spiegelhalter DJ (1996) Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice: Chapman and Hall.
26. Curran J (2008) A MCMC method for resolving two person mixtures. Sci Justice 48: 168-177.
27. Dror IE, Hampikian G (2011) Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Science & Justice 51: 204-208.
28. Perlin MW (2010) Inclusion probability is a likelihood ratio: implications for DNA mixtures (poster #85). Promega's Twenty First International Symposium on Human Identification. San Antonio, TX.
29. Curran JM, Buckleton J (2010) Inclusion probabilities and dropout. J Forensic Sci 55: 1171-1173.
30. Tvedebrink T, Eriksen PS, Mogensen HS, Morling N (2012) Identifying contributors of DNA mixtures by means of quantitative information of STR typing. J Comput Biol 19: 887-902.
31. Aitken CG, Taroni F (2004) Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists. Chicester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
32. Good IJ (1950) Probability and the Weighing of Evidence. London: Griffin.
33. Perlin MW (2010) Explaining the likelihood ratio in DNA mixture interpretation. Promega's Twenty First International Symposium on Human Identification. San Antonio, TX.
34. Essen-Möller E (1938) Die Biesweiskraft der Ähnlichkeit im Vater Schaftsnachweis; Theoretische Grundlagen. Mitteilungen der anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 68.
35. Balding DJ, Nichols RA (1994) DNA profile match probability calculation: how to allow for population stratification, relatedness, database selection and single bands. Forensic Sci Int 64: 125-140. (Pubitemid 24089897)
36. Curran JM, Triggs C, Buckleton J, Weir BS (1999) Interpreting DNA mixtures in structured populations. J Forensic Sci 44: 987-995. (Pubitemid 29420385)
37. Aitken CG, Taroni F (1998) A verbal scale for the interpretation of evidence. Science & Justice 38: 279-281.
38. Devlin B (1993) Forensic inference from genetic markers. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 2: 241-262.
39. Massey FT (1951) The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for goodness of fit. Journal of the American Statistical Association 46: 68-78.
40. Perlin MW (2003) Simple reporting of complex DNA evidence: automated computer interpretation. Promega's Fourteenth International Symposium on Human Identification. Phoenix, AZ.
41. Perlin MW (2012) DNA Identification Science. In: Wecht CH, editor. Forensic Sciences. Albany, NY: LexisNexis Matthew Bender. pp. Chapter 37C.
42. Perlin MW (2012) Easy reporting of hard DNA: computer comfort in the courtroom. Forensic Magazine 9: 32-37.
43. Cover TM, Thomas JA (2006) Elements of information theory. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley-Interscience. 748 p.
44. Kadash K, Kozlowski BE, Biega LA, Duceman BW (2004) Validation study of the TrueAllele automated data review system. J Forensic Sci 49: 1-8.
45. Coble MD, Butler JM (2011) Exploring the capabilities of mixture interpretation using TrueAllele software. International Society of Forensic Genetics. Vienna.
46. Kline MC, Butts ELR, Hill CR, Coble MD, Duewer DL, et al. (2011) The new Standard Reference Material 2391c: PCR-based DNA profiling standard. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series.
47. Koehler JJ (2001) When are people persuaded by DNA match statistics? Law and Human Behavior 25: 493-513.
48. Gill P, Brenner CH, Buckleton JS, Carracedo A, Krawczak M, et al. (2006) DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the interpretation of mixtures. Forensic Sci Int 160: 90-101. (Pubitemid 44056009)
49. Brenner CH (2011) The mythical "exclusion" method for analyzing DNA mixtures - does it make any sense at all? (A111). AAFS 63rd Annual Scientific Meeting. Chicago, IL: American Academy of Forensic Sciences. pp.79.