Internal validation of STRmix™ for the interpretation of single source and mixed DNA profiles

Forensic Science International: Genetics

Volumn 29, Issue , 2017, Pages 126-144

  Moretti, Tamyra R ^a   Just, Rebecca S ^a   Kehl, Susannah C ^a   Willis, Leah E ^a   Buckleton, John S ^b,c   Bright, Jo Anne ^b   Taylor, Duncan A ^d,e   Onorato, Anthony J ^a  

^a Federal Bureau of Investigation   (United States)

^b MT ALBERT RESEARCH CENTRE   (New Zealand)

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

^d FORENSIC SCIENCE SA   (Australia)

^e FLINDERS UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

DNA Mixtures; Likelihood Ratios; Probabilistic Genotyping; STRs

Indexed keywords

DNA; MICROSATELLITE DNA;

ACCURACY; ALLELE; ARTICLE; CAPILLARY ELECTROPHORESIS; DNA DEGRADATION; DNA FINGERPRINTING; DNA TEMPLATE; ELECTROPHORESIS; GENOTYPE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SOFTWARE; ULTRAVIOLET IRRADIATION; VALIDATION STUDY; GENE FREQUENCY; GENETICS; GENOTYPING TECHNIQUE; HUMAN; POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; STATISTICAL MODEL;

DNA; DNA FINGERPRINTING; GENE FREQUENCY; GENOTYPING TECHNIQUES; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MICROSATELLITE REPEATS; POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; SOFTWARE;

EID: 85019123488     PISSN: 18724973     EISSN: 18780326     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2017.04.004     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Moretti, T., Baumstark, A.L., Defenbaugh, B.S., Keys, K.M., Smerick, J.B., Budowle, B., Validation of short tandem repeats (STRs) for forensic usage: performance testing of fluorescent multiplex STR systems and analysis of authentic and simulated forensic samples. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 46(647), 2001, 60.
2. Budowle, B., Onorato, A.J., Callagham, T.F., Manna, A.D., Gross, A.M., Guerreri, R.A., et al. Mixture Interpretation: defining the relevant features for guidelines for the assessment of mixed DNA profiles in forensic casework. Journal of Forensic Sciences 54 (2009), 810–821.
3. 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. Journal of Forensic Sciences 55 (2010), 265–268.
4. Bieber, F.R., Buckleton, J.S., Budowle, B., Butler, J.M., Coble, M.D., Evaluation of forensic DNA mixture evidence: protocol for evaluation, interpretation, and statistical calculations using the combined probability of inclusion. BMC Genetics, 17, 2016, 125.
5. Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (SWGDAM), SWGDAM Interpretation Guidelines for Autosomal STR Typing by Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories. 2010 [Accessed] 23 November 2014 http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/html/codis_swgdam.pdf.
6. Taylor, D., Bright, J.-A., Buckleton, J., The interpretation of single source and mixed DNA profiles. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 7 (2013), 516–528.
7. ® DNA Mixture Interpretation. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 56 (2011), 1430–1447.
8. Balding, D.J., Buckleton, J., Interpreting low template DNA profiles. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 4 (2009), 1–10.
9. Gill, P., Haned, H., A new methodological framework to interpret complex DNA profiles using likelihood ratios. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 7 (2013), 251–263.
10. Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (SWGDAM), Guidelines for the validation of probabilistic genotyping systems. 2015 [Accessed] 3 October 2016. http://media.wix.com/ugd/4344b0_22776006b67c4a32a5ffc04fe3b56515. pdf.
11. Taylor, D., Using continuous DNA interpretation methods to revisit likelihood ratio behaviour. Forensic Science International: Genetics 11 (2014), 144–153.
12. FBI Laboratory, National DNA Index System (NDIS) Operational Procedures Manual, Version Effective January 1, 2015. 2015 [Accessed] April 4, 2016 https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biometric-analysis/codis/ndis-procedures-manual/view.
13. FBI Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories. 2011 [Accessed] 19 November 2014 http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biometric-analysis/codis/qas-standards-for-forensic-dna-testing-laboratories-effective-9-1-2011.
14. Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (SWGDAM), Guidelines for validation of DNA analysis methods. 2016 [Accessed] 1 February 2017 https://media.wix.com/ugd/4344b0_813b241e8944497e99b9c45b163b76bd.pdf.
15. Bright, J.-A., Taylor, D., Curran, J.M., Buckleton, J.S., Developing allelic and stutter peak height models for a continuous method of DNA interpretation. Forensic Science International: Genetics 7 (2013), 296–304.
16. Brookes, C., Bright, J.-A., Harbison, S., Buckleton, J., Characterising stutter in forensic STR multiplexes. Forensic Science International: Genetics 6 (2012), 58–63.
17. Taylor, D., Buckleton, J., Bright J-A: Factors affecting peak height variability for short tandem repeat data. Forensic Science International: Genetics 21 (2016), 126–133.
18. Taylor, D., Bright, J.-A., McGoven, C., Hefford, C., Kalafut, T., Buckleton, J., Validating multiplexes for use in conjunction with modern interpretation strategies. Forensic Science International: Genetics 20 (2016), 6–19.
19. Bright, J.-A., Huizing, E., Melia, L., Buckleton, J., Determination of the variables affecting mixed MiniFiler DNA profiles. Forensic Science International: Genetics 5 (2011), 381–385.
20. Bright, J.-A., Turkington, J., Buckleton, J., Examination of the variability in mixed DNA profile parameters for the Identifiler multiplex. Forensic Science International: Genetics 4 (2009), 111–114.
21. Balding, D.J., Nichols, R.A., DNA profile match probability calculation: how to allow for population stratification, relatedness, database selection and single bands. Forensic Science International 64 (1994), 125–140.
22. National Research Council II, National Research Council Committee on DNA Forensic Science, The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence. 1996, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
23. Budowle, B., Moretti, T.R., Baumstark, A.L., Defenbaugh, D.A., Keys, K.M., Population data on the thirteen CODIS core short tandem repeat loci in African Americans, US, Caucasians, Hispanics, Bahamanians, Jamaicans and Trinidadians. Journal of Forensic Sciences 44 (1999), 1277–1286.
24. Budowle, B., Collins, P., Dimsoski, P., Ganong, C., Hennessy, L., Leibelt, C., et al. Population data on the STR loci D2S1338 and D19S433. Forensic Sci Communications, 2001, 3.
25. Budowle, B., Shea, B., Niezgoda, S.J., Chakraborty, R., CODIS STR. loci data from 41 sample populations. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 46(453), 2001, 89.
26. Moretti, T.R., Budowle, B., Buckleton, J.S., Notice of Amendment of the FBI's STR Population Data Published in 1999 and 2001. Journal of Forensic Sciences 60 (2015), 1114–1116.
27. Bright, J.-A., Taylor, D., Curran, J., Buckleton, J., Searching mixed DNA profiles directly against profile databases. Forensic Science International: Genetics 9 (2014), 102–110.
28. Taylor, D., Bright, J.-A., Buckleton, J., The ‘factor of two’ issue in mixed DNA profiles. Journal of Theoretical Biology 363 (2014), 300–306.
29. Bright, J.-A., Evett, I.W., Taylor, D., Curran, J.M., Buckleton, J., A series of recommended tests when validating probabilistic DNA profile interpretation software. Forensic Science International: Genetics 14 (2015), 125–131.
30. Bright, J.-A., Taylor, D., McGovern, C.E., Cooper, S., Russell, L., Abarno, D., et al. Developmental validation of STRmix™, expert software for the interpretation of forensic DNA profiles. Forensic Science International: Genetics 23 (2016), 226–239.
31. Curran, J.M., Buckleton, J.S., Triggs, C.M., What is the magnitude of the subpopulation effect. Forensic Science International 135 (2003), 1–8.
32. ST. values for forensic STR markers: A worldwide survey. Forensic Science International: Genetics 23 (2017), 91–100.
33. Triggs, C.M., Curran, J.M., The sensitivity of the Bayesian HPD method to the choice of prior. Science & Justice 46 (2006), 169–178.
34. Taylor, D., Bright, J.-A., Buckleton, J., Curran, J., An illustration of the effect of various sources of uncertainty on DNA likelihood ratio calculations. Forensic Science International: Genetics 11 (2014), 56–63.
35. Bright, J.-A., Curran, J.M., Buckleton, J.S., The effect of the uncertainty in the number of contributors to mixed DNA profiles on profile interpretation. Forensic Science International: Genetics 12 (2014), 208–214.
36. European Network of Forensic Science Institutes, ENFSI Guideline for Evaluative Reporting in Forensic Science., 2015 [Accessed] 3 March 2017 http://enfsi.eu/news/enfsi-guideline-evaluative-reporting-forensic-science/.
37. Association of Forensic Science Providers. Standards for the formulation of evaluative forensic science expert opinion. Science & Justice 49 (2009), 161–164.