Resolving relationship tests that show ambiguous STR results using autosomal SNPs as supplementary markers.

When using a standard battery of STRs for relationship testing a small proportion of analyses can give ambiguous results - where the claimed relationship cannot be confirmed by a high enough paternity index or excluded with fully incompatible genotypes. The majority of such cases arise from unknowingly testing a brother of the true father and observing only a small number of exclusions that can each be interpreted as one- or two-step mutations. Although adding extra STRs might resolve a proportion of cases, there are few properly validated extra STRs available, while the commonly added hypervariable SE33 locus is four times more mutable than average, increasing the risk of ambiguous results. We have found SNPs in large multiplexes are much more informative for both low initial probabilities or ambiguous exclusions and at the same time provide a more reliable genotyping approach for the highly degraded DNA encountered in many identification cases. Eight relationship cases are outlined where the addition of SNP data resolved analyses that had remained ambiguous even with extended STR typing. In addition we have made simulations to ascertain the frequency of failing to obtain exclusions or conclusive probabilities of paternity with different marker sets when a brother of the true father is tested. Results indicate that SNPs are statistically more efficient than STRs in resolving cases that distinguish first-degree relatives in deficient pedigrees.

[1]  B Brinkmann,et al.  Mutation rate in human microsatellites: influence of the structure and length of the tandem repeat. , 1998, American journal of human genetics.

[2]  Á. Carracedo,et al.  Sequence variation of a hypervariable short tandem repeat at the D12S391 locus. , 1996, Gene.

[3]  A. Carracedo,et al.  Sequence variation of a hypervariable short tandem repeat at the D1S1656 locus , 1998, International Journal of Legal Medicine.

[4]  T Egeland,et al.  Beyond traditional paternity and identification cases. Selecting the most probable pedigree. , 2000, Forensic science international.

[5]  N. Morling,et al.  Comparison of paternity indices based on typing of 15 STRs, 7 VNTRs and 52 SNPs in 50 Danish mother–child–father trios , 2006 .

[6]  A. Masibay,et al.  Promega Corporation reveals primer sequences in its testing kits. , 2000, Journal of forensic sciences.

[7]  P M Schneider,et al.  Evaluation of the Genplex SNP typing system and a 49plex forensic marker panel. , 2007, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[8]  A. Amorim Genotyping inconsistencies and null alleles using AmpFLSTR® Identifiler® and Powerplex® 16 kits , 2004 .

[9]  M V Lareu,et al.  Case report: identification of skeletal remains using short-amplicon marker analysis of severely degraded DNA extracted from a decomposed and charred femur. , 2008, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[10]  Á. Carracedo,et al.  Challenging DNA: Assessment of a range of genotyping approaches for highly degraded forensic samples , 2008 .

[11]  Á. Carracedo,et al.  Sequence variation of a variable short tandem repeat at the D18S535 locus , 1998, International Journal of Legal Medicine.

[12]  M. Nachman,et al.  Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. , 2000, Genetics.

[13]  Á. Carracedo,et al.  A multiplex assay with 52 single nucleotide polymorphisms for human identification , 2006, Electrophoresis.

[14]  Max P. Baur,et al.  How to Deal with Mutations in DNA-Testing , 1992 .