NIST interlaboratory studies involving DNA mixtures (MIX13): A modern analysis.

MIX13 was an interlaboratory exercise directed by NIST in 2013. The goal of the exercise was to evaluate the general state of interpretation methods in use at the time across the forensic community within the US and Canada and to measure the consistency in mixture interpretation. The findings were that there was a large variation in analysts' interpretations between and within laboratories. Within this work, we sought to evaluate the same mock mixture cases analyzed in MIX13 but with a more current view of the state-of-the-science. Each of the five cases were analyzed using the Identifiler™ multiplex and interpreted with the combined probability of inclusion, CPI, and four different modern probabilistic genotyping systems. Cases 1-4 can be interpreted without difficulty by any of the four PG systems examined. Cases 1 and 4 could also be interpreted successfully with the CPI by assuming two donors. Cases 2 and 3 cannot be interpreted successfully with the CPI because of potential of allele dropout. Case 3 demonstrated the need to consider relevant background information before interpretation of the profile. This case does not show that there is some barrier to interpretation caused by relatedness beyond the increased allelic overlap that can occur. Had this profile been of better template it might have been interpreted using the CPI despite the (potential) relatedness of contributors. Case 5 suffers from over-engineering. It is unclear whether reference 5C, a non-donor, can be excluded by manual methods. Inclusion of reference 5C should be termed an adventitious match not a false inclusion. Beyond this statement this case does not contribute to the interlaboratory study of analyst/laboratory interpretation method performance, instead, it explores the limits of DNA analysis. Taken collectively the analysis of these five cases demonstrates the benefits of changing from CPI to a PG system.

[1]  Bruce Budowle,et al.  Strengthening forensic DNA decision making through a better understanding of the influence of cognitive bias. , 2017, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[2]  John M Butler,et al.  NIST interlaboratory studies involving DNA mixtures (MIX05 and MIX13): Variation observed and lessons learned. , 2018, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[3]  Bruce Budowle,et al.  Mixture Interpretation: Defining the Relevant Features for Guidelines for the Assessment of Mixed DNA Profiles in Forensic Casework * , 2009, Journal of forensic sciences.

[4]  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.

[5]  Duncan Taylor,et al.  Considering relatives when assessing the evidential strength of mixed DNA profiles. , 2014, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[6]  James Curran,et al.  Searching mixed DNA profiles directly against profile databases. , 2014, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[7]  Ken Cheng,et al.  Lab Retriever: a software tool for calculating likelihood ratios incorporating a probability of drop-out for forensic DNA profiles , 2015, BMC Bioinformatics.

[8]  Duncan A. Taylor,et al.  Internal validation of STRmix™ - A multi laboratory response to PCAST. , 2018, Forensic science international. Genetics.

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

[10]  Michael A. Marciano,et al.  PACE: Probabilistic Assessment for Contributor Estimation- A machine learning-based assessment of the number of contributors in DNA mixtures. , 2017, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[11]  Øyvind Bleka,et al.  EuroForMix: An open source software based on a continuous model to evaluate STR DNA profiles from a mixture of contributors with artefacts. , 2016, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[12]  P Gill,et al.  Euroforgen-NoE collaborative exercise on LRmix to demonstrate standardization of the interpretation of complex DNA profiles. , 2014, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[13]  Torben Tvedebrink On the exact distribution of the numbers of alleles in DNA mixtures , 2013, International Journal of Legal Medicine.

[14]  Roger W Byard,et al.  Fatal Ischemic Enteritis with Hemorrhage—A Late Complication of Treated Wilms Tumor , 2013, Journal of forensic sciences.

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

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

[17]  Jo-Anne Bright,et al.  Internal validation of STRmix™ for the interpretation of single source and mixed DNA profiles. , 2017, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[18]  Øyvind Bleka,et al.  Open source software EuroForMix can be used to analyse complex SNP mixtures. , 2017, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[19]  Michael D. Coble,et al.  Evaluation of forensic DNA mixture evidence: protocol for evaluation, interpretation, and statistical calculations using the combined probability of inclusion , 2016, BMC Genetics.

[20]  Muriel Medard,et al.  NOCIt: a computational method to infer the number of contributors to DNA samples analyzed by STR genotyping. , 2015, Forensic science international. Genetics.

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

[22]  John M. Butler,et al.  Advanced Topics in Forensic DNA Typing: Interpretation , 2014 .

[23]  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.

[24]  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.

[25]  P Gill,et al.  A new methodological framework to interpret complex DNA profiles using likelihood ratios. , 2013, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[26]  Øyvind Bleka,et al.  A comparative study of qualitative and quantitative models used to interpret complex STR DNA profiles. , 2016, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[27]  J E Allard,et al.  The collection of data from findings in cases of sexual assault and the significance of spermatozoa on vaginal, anal and oral swabs. , 1997, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[28]  Jo-Anne Bright,et al.  Uncertainty in the number of contributors in the proposed new CODIS set. , 2015, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[29]  W R Mayr,et al.  DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the interpretation of mixtures. , 2006, Forensic science international.