Development of a simulation model to assess the impact of contamination in casework using STRs.

Because contamination is usually tube-specific, negative controls cannot give assurance that an associated batch of extracted casework material is contaminant-free. However, it is possible to use them to predict the level of overall (undetected) contamination that is processed by an operational DNA unit. A MATLAB-based program was used to combine results of negative controls with actual casework DNA profiles to assess the probability that laboratory contaminants will give rise to reportable profiles (along with their likelihood ratios). Using data from an operational DNA unit as an example, it was demonstrated that the risk is inextricably linked to guidelines used to interpret DNA profiles. We have demonstrated how computer-based models can predict the levels of contamination expected in the process and, in addition, how the process can be made more robust by changing reporting guidelines. There is a need to compare DNA profiles against staff and plasticware elimination databases in order to determine sources of contamination. The likeliest outcome of a contamination event is false exclusion.

[1]  R. Sparkes,et al.  Validation of the AMPFlSTR SGM plus system for use in forensic casework. , 2000, Forensic science international.

[2]  Jonathan Whitaker,et al.  Interpreting small quantities of DNA: the hierarchy of propositions and the use of Bayesian networks. , 2002, Journal of forensic sciences.

[3]  I. Evett,et al.  A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework , 1998 .

[4]  J Buckleton,et al.  Interpreting simple STR mixtures using allele peak areas. , 1998, Forensic science international.

[5]  J Buckleton,et al.  An investigation of the rigor of interpretation rules for STRs derived from less than 100 pg of DNA. , 2000, Forensic science international.

[6]  S. Hummel,et al.  Evidence of contamination in PCR laboratory disposables , 1995, Naturwissenschaften.

[7]  I. Evett,et al.  More on the hierarchy of propositions: exploring the distinction between explanations and propositions. , 2000, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[8]  Franco Taroni,et al.  How the probability of a false positive affects the value of DNA evidence. , 2003, Journal of forensic sciences.

[9]  Peter Gill,et al.  Role of short tandem repeat DNA in forensic casework in the UK--past, present, and future perspectives. , 2002, BioTechniques.

[10]  Ian W. Evett,et al.  Case pre-assessment and review in a two-way transfer case , 1999 .

[11]  P Gill,et al.  Application of low copy number DNA profiling. , 2001, Croatian medical journal.

[12]  Gillian Tully,et al.  The propensity of individuals to deposit DNA and secondary transfer of low level DNA from individuals to inert surfaces. , 2002, Forensic science international.