Does the use of probabilistic genotyping change the way we should view sub-threshold data?

Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences

Volumn 49, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 78-92

  Taylor, Duncan ^a,b   Buckleton, John ^c,d   Bright, Jo Anne ^c  

^a FORENSIC SCIENCE SA   (Australia)

^b FLINDERS UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c MT ALBERT RESEARCH CENTRE   (New Zealand)

^d NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

analytical threshold; DNA profile interpretation; likelihood ratios; sub threshold

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER PROGRAM; GENOTYPE; HUMAN;

EID: 84951278825     PISSN: 00450618     EISSN: 1834562X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00450618.2015.1122082     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Bregu J, Conklin D, Coronado E, Terrill M, Cotton R, Grgicak C. Analytical thresholds and sensitivity:establishing RFU thresholds for forensic DNA analysis. J Forensic Sci. 2012;58(1):120–129.
2. Taylor D, Bright J-A, McGoven C, Hefford C, Kalafut T, Buckleton J. Validating multiplexes for use in conjunction with modern interpretation strategies. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2015;20:6–19 doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2015.09.011.
3. Gilder JR, Doom TE, Inman K, Crim M, Krane DE. Run-specific limits of detection and quantitation for STR-based DNA typing. J Forensic Sci. 2006;52(1):97–101.
4. Bright J-A, Curran J, Buckleton J. The effect of the uncertainty in the number of contributors to mixed DNA profiles on profile interpretation. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2014;12:208–214.10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.06.009
5. Bright J-A, Taylor D, Curran J, Buckleton J. Searching mixed DNA profiles directly against profile databases. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2014;9:102–110.10.1016/j.fsigen.2013.12.001
6. Benschop C, Haned H, Jeurissen L, Gill P, Sijen T. The effect of varying the number of contributors on likelihood ratios for complex DNA mixtures. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2015;19:92–99.10.1016/j.fsigen.2015.07.003
7. Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (SWGDAM). Guidelines for the validation of probabilistic genotyping systems, 2015.
8. Taylor D, Bright J-A, Buckleton J. Interpreting forensic DNA profiling evidence without specifying the number of contributors. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2014;13:269–280.10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.08.014
9. Taylor D, Buckleton J. Do low template DNA profiles have useful quantitative data? Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2015;16:13–16.10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.11.001
10. Taylor D. Using continuous DNA interpretation methods to revisit likelihood ratio behaviour. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2014;11:144–153.10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.03.008
11. Taylor D, Bright J-A, Buckleton J. The interpretation of single source and mixed DNA profiles. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2013;7(5):516–528.10.1016/j.fsigen.2013.05.011
12. Bright J-A, Taylor D, Curran JM, Buckleton JS. Developing allelic and stutter peak height models for a continuous method of DNA interpretation. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2013;7(2):296–304.10.1016/j.fsigen.2012.11.013
13. Bright J-A, Taylor D, J.M. C, Buckleton JS. Degradation of forensic DNA profiles. Aust J Forensic Sci. 2013;45(4):445–449.10.1080/00450618.2013.772235
14. Bright J-A, Curran JM, Buckleton JS. The effect of the uncertainty in the number of contributors to mixed DNA profiles on profile interpretation. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2014;12:208–214.10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.06.009
15. Swaminathan H, Grgicak CM, Medard M, Lun DS. NOCIt:a computational method to infer the number of contributors to DNA samples analyzed by STR genotyping. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2015;16:172–180.10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.11.010
16. Gill P, Brenner CH, Buckleton JS, Carracedo A, Krawczak M, Mayr WR, Morling N, Prinz M, Schneider PM, Weir BS. DNA commission of the international society of forensic genetics:recommendations on the interpretation of mixtures. Forensic Sci Int. 2006;160:90–101.10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.04.009