The factor of 10 in forensic DNA match probabilities.

An update was performed of the classic experiments that led to the view that profile probability assignments are usually within a factor of 10 of each other. The data used in this study consist of 15 Identifiler loci collected from a wide range of forensic populations. Following Budowle et al. [1], the terms cognate and non-cognate are used. The cognate database is the database from which the profiles are simulated. The profile probability assignment was usually larger in the cognate database. In 44%-65% of the cases, the profile probability for 15 loci in the non-cognate database was within a factor of 10 of the profile probability in the cognate database. This proportion was between 60% and 80% when the FBI and NIST data were used as the non-cognate databases. A second experiment compared the match probability assignment using a generalised database and recommendation 4.2 from NRC II (the 4.2 assignment) with a proxy for the matching proportion developed using subpopulation allele frequencies and the product rule. The findings support that the 4.2 assignment has a large conservative bias. These results are in agreement with previous research results.

[1]  Duncan Taylor,et al.  The interpretation of single source and mixed DNA profiles. , 2013, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[2]  S Sawyer,et al.  DNA fingerprinting loci do show population differences: comments on Budowle et al. , 1996, American journal of human genetics.

[3]  John Buckleton,et al.  Interpreting low template DNA profiles. , 2009, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[4]  B. S. Weir,et al.  Exact tests for association between alleles at arbitrary numbers of loci , 2005, Genetica.

[5]  J. Buckleton,et al.  Logical implications of applying the principles of population genetics to the interpretation of DNA profiling evidence. , 2002, Forensic science international.

[6]  James M Curran,et al.  How reliable is the sub-population model in DNA testimony? , 2006, Forensic science international.

[7]  K. Monson,et al.  A reassessment of frequency estimates of PvuII-generated VNTR profiles in a Finnish, an Italian, and a general U.S. Caucasian database: no evidence for ethnic subgroups affecting forensic estimates. , 1994, American journal of human genetics.

[8]  Roberto Puch-Solis,et al.  Evidential evaluation of DNA profiles using a discrete statistical model implemented in the DNA LiRa software. , 2014, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[9]  Hinda Haned,et al.  Forensim: an open-source initiative for the evaluation of statistical methods in forensic genetics. , 2011, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[10]  Peter Gill,et al.  A comparison of adjustment methods to test the robustness of an STR DNA database comprised of 24 European populations. , 2003, Forensic science international.

[11]  The effect of ethnic and racial population substructuring on the estimation of multi-locus fixed-bin VNTR RFLP genotype probabilities. , 1997, Journal of forensic sciences.

[12]  Effects of population structure and admixture on exact tests for association between Loci. , 2003, Genetics.

[13]  Bruce S Weir,et al.  Confidence Interval of the Likelihood Ratio Associated with Mixed Stain DNA Evidence * , 2011, Journal of forensic sciences.

[14]  K. Monson,et al.  Evaluation of Hinf I-generated VNTR profile frequencies determined using various ethnic databases. , 1994, Journal of forensic sciences.

[15]  M. Perlin,et al.  Validating TrueAllele® DNA Mixture Interpretation * ,† , 2011, Journal of forensic sciences.

[16]  B Budowle,et al.  The assessment of frequency estimates of Hae III-generated VNTR profiles in various reference databases. , 1994, Journal of forensic sciences.

[17]  I. Evett,et al.  Interpreting DNA Evidence: Statistical Genetics for Forensic Scientists , 1998 .

[18]  D J Balding,et al.  DNA profile match probability calculation: how to allow for population stratification, relatedness, database selection and single bands. , 1994, Forensic science international.

[19]  Jo-Anne Bright,et al.  Population data on the expanded CODIS core STR loci for eleven populations of significance for forensic DNA analyses in the United States. , 2016, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[20]  Ian W. Evett,et al.  Statistical analysis of STR data , 1996 .

[21]  David L Duewer,et al.  U.S. population data for 29 autosomal STR loci. , 2013, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[22]  Norah Rudin,et al.  Calculating the Weight of Evidence in Low‐Template Forensic DNA Casework , 2013, Journal of forensic sciences.

[23]  James M Curran,et al.  What is the magnitude of the subpopulation effect? , 2003, Forensic science international.

[24]  B S Weir,et al.  Truncated product method for combining P‐values , 2002, Genetic epidemiology.