A series of recommended tests when validating probabilistic DNA profile interpretation software

Forensic Science International: Genetics

Volumn 14, Issue , 2015, Pages 125-131

  Bright, Jo Anne ^a,b   Evett, Ian W ^c   Taylor, Duncan ^d,e   Curran, James M ^b   Buckleton, John ^a  

^a MT ALBERT RESEARCH CENTRE   (New Zealand)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

^c Principal Forensic Services Ltd   (United Kingdom)

^d Univesity of South Australia   (Australia)

^e FLINDERS UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Continuous models; DNA interpretation; Forensic DNA; Lab Retriever; LRmix; STRmix

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CALCULATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS SOFTWARE; DNA DETERMINATION; DNA FINGERPRINTING; GENE FREQUENCY; GENOTYPE; HETEROZYGOTE; HUMAN; PROBABILITY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; FORENSIC GENETICS; GENETICS; VALIDATION STUDY;

DNA;

DNA; FORENSIC GENETICS; HUMANS; PROBABILITY; SOFTWARE;

EID: 84908434314     PISSN: 18724973     EISSN: 18780326     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.09.019     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. C. Vecchiotti, S. Conti, The Connti-Vecchiotti Report, 2011 Available from: http://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com/, (cited 5 May 2014).
2. A. Haelser, Issues in gathering, interpreting and delivering DNA evidence, in: Expert Evidence Conference, Canberra, 2011.
3. L. Geddes, Fallible DNA evidence can mean prison or freedom, New Sci. 207 (2773) (2010) 8-11.
4. J. Butler, M. Kline, NIST Mixture Interpretation Interlaboratory Study 2005 (MIX05), in: Promega's Sixteenth International Symposium on Human Identification, Grapevine, TX, 2005.
5. Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (SWGDAM), SWGDAM Interpretation Guidelines for Autosomal STR Typing by Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories, 2010 Available from: http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/html/codis-swg-dam.pdf.
6. N. Morling, et al., Interpretation of DNA mixtures - European consensus on principles, Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 1 (3-4) (2007) 291-292.
7. P. Gill, et al., DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: recommendations on the interpretation of mixtures, Forensic Sci. Int. 160 (2006) 90-101.
8. P. Gill, et al., DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: recommendations on forensic analysis using Y-chromosome STRs, Int. J. Legal Med. 114 (2001) 305-309.
9. P. Gill, et al., DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: recommendations on the evaluation of STR typing results that may include drop-out and/or drop-in using probabilistic methods, Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 6 (6) (2012) 679-688.
10. A. Carracedo, et al., Focus issue - analysis and biostatistical interpretation of complex and low template DNA samples, Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 6 (6) (2012) 677-678.
11. D. Taylor, J.-A. Bright, J. Buckleton, The interpretation of single source and mixed DNA profiles, Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 7 (5) (2013) 516-528.
12. M.W. Perlin, et al., Validating TrueAllele® DNA mixture interpretation, J. Forensic Sci. 56 (6) (2011) 1430-1447.
13. D.J. Balding, J. Buckleton, Interpreting low template DNA profiles, Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 4 (1) (2009) 1-10.
14. P. Gill, H. Haned, A new methodological framework to interpret complex DNA profiles using likelihood ratios, Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 7 (2) (2013) 251-263.
15. H. Kelly, et al., A comparison of statistical models for the analysis of complex forensic DNA profiles, Sci. Justice 54 (2014) 66-70.
16. C.D. Steele, D.J. Balding, Statistical evaluation of forensic DNA profile evidence, Annu. Rev. Stat. Appl. 1 (2014) 20.1-20.24.
17. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories, 2011, September 1 Available from: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/codis/qas-standards-for-forensic-dna-testing-laboratories-effective-9-1-2011, (cited 30 March 2014).
18. Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (SWGDAM), Validation Guidelines for DNA Analysis Methods, 2012 Available from: http://swgdam.org/SWGDAM-Validation-Guidelines-APPROVED-Dec-2012.pdf, (cited 30 March 2014).
19. H. Haned, Forensim an open-source initiative for the evaluation of statistical methods in forensic genetics, Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 5 (4) (2011) 265-268.
20. K. Lohmueller, N. Rudin, Calculating the weight of evidence in low-template forensic DNA casework, J. Forensic Sci. 58 (1) (2013) 234-259.
21. P. Gill, J. Curran, K. Elliot, A graphical simulation model of the entire DNA process associated with the analysis of short tandem repeat loci, Nucl. Acids Res. 33 (2) (2005) 632-643.
22. J.-A. Bright, et al., Degradation of forensic DNA profiles, Aust. J. Forensic Sci. 45 (4) (2013) 445-449.
23. C. Brookes, et al., Characterising stutter in forensic STR multiplexes, Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 6 (1) (2012) 58-63.
24. J.-A. Bright, et al., Developing allelic and stutter peak height models for a continuous method of DNA interpretation, Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 7 (2) (2013) 296-304.
25. D.J. Balding, R.A. Nichols, DNA profile match probability calculation: how to allow for population stratification, relatedness, database selection and single bands, Forensic Sci. Int. 64 (1994) 125-140.
26. NRC II, National Research Council Committee on, DNA. Forensic Science, The Evaluation of Forensic, DNA Evidence, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1996.
27. P. Gill, A. Kirkham, J. Curran, LoComatioN: a software tool for the analysis of low copy number DNA profiles, Forensic Sci. Int. 166 (2-3) (2007) 128-138.
28. P. Gill, et al., National recommendations of the technical UK DNA working group on mixture interpretation for the NDNAD and for court going purposes, Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2 (1) (2008) 76-82.
29. P. Gill, J. Buckleton, A universal strategy to interpret DNA profiles that does not require a definition of low-copy-number, Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 4 (4) (2010) 221-227.
30. Applied Biosystems, AmpFlSTR Identifiler Amplification Kit User Guide, Foster City, CA, Applied Biosystems, 2009.
31. B. Budowle, et al., Population data on the thirteen CODIS core short tandem repeat loci in African Americans, US, Caucasians, Hispanics, Bahamanians, Jamaicans and Trinidadians, J. Forensic Sci. 44 (1999) 1277-1286.
32. B. Budowle, et al., Population data on the STR Loci D2S1338 and D19S433, Forensic Sci. Commun. 3 (3) (2001), Available at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/july2001/index.htm/budowle2.htm.
33. B. Budowle, T.R. Moretti, Genotype profiles for six population groups at the 13 CODIS short tandem repeat core loci and other PCR-based loci, 1999 Available from: http://www.fbi.gov/programs/lab/fsc/backissu/july1999, (cited July 1999).
34. T. Tvedebrink, et al., Estimating the probability of allelic drop-out of STR alleles in forensic genetics, Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 3 (4) (2009) 222-226.
35. J. Buckleton, et al., Utilising allelic dropout probabilities estimated by logistic regression in casework, Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 9 (1) (2014) 9-11.
36. A.A. Mitchell, et al., Likelihood ratio statistics for DNA mixtures allowing for drop-out and drop-in, Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. Suppl. Series 3 (1) (2011) e240-e241.
37. C.M. Triggs, J. Buckleton, The two trace transfer problem revisited, Sci. Justice 43 (3) (2003) 127-134.
38. D.A. Stoney, Relaxation of the assumption of relevance and an application to one-trace and two-trace problems, J. Forensic Sci. Soc. 34 (1994) 17-21.
39. S. Gittelson, et al., Bayesian networks and the value of the evidence for the forensic two-trace transfer problem, J. Forensic Sci. 57 (5) (2012) 1199-1216.
40. S. Gittelson, et al., Modeling the forensic two-trace problem with Bayesian networks, Artif. Intell. Law 21 (2) (2013) 221-252.
41. I.W. Evett, On meaningful questions: a two-trace transfer problem, J. Forensic Sci. Soc. 27 (1987) 375-381.
42. R. Meester, M. Sjerps, The evidential value in the DNA database search controversy and the two-stain problem, Biometrics 59 (3) (2003) 727-732.
43. L. Prieto, et al., Euroforgen-NoE collaborative exercise on LRmix to demonstrate standardization of the interpretation of complex DNA profiles, Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 9 (2014) 47-54.
44. D. Taylor, Using continuous DNA interpretation methods to revisit likelihood ratio behaviour, Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 11 (2014) 144-153.
45. D. Taylor, et al., An illustration of the effect of various sources of uncertainty on DNA likelihood ratio calculations, Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 11 (2014) 56-63.
46. J.-A. Bright, et al., Searching mixed DNA profiles directly against profile databases, Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 9 (2014) 102-110.