Validation of a DNA mixture statistics tool incorporating allelic drop-out and drop-in.

DNA mixture analysis is a current topic of discussion in the forensics literature. Of particular interest is how to approach mixtures where allelic drop-out and/or drop-in may have occurred. The Office of Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) of The City of New York has developed and validated the Forensic Statistical Tool (FST), a software tool for likelihood ratio analysis of forensic DNA samples, allowing for allelic drop-out and drop-in. FST can be used for single source samples and for mixtures of DNA from two or three contributors, with or without known contributors. Drop-out and drop-in probabilities were estimated empirically through analysis of over 2000 amplifications of more than 700 mixtures and single source samples. Drop-out rates used by FST are a function of the Identifiler(®) locus, the quantity of template DNA amplified, the number of amplification cycles, the number of contributors to the sample, and the approximate mixture ratio (either unequal or approximately equal). Drop-out rates were estimated separately for heterozygous and homozygous genotypes. Drop-in rates used by FST are a function of number of amplification cycles only. FST was validated using 454 mock evidence samples generated from DNA mixtures and from items handled by one to four persons. For each sample, likelihood ratios (LRs) were computed for each true contributor and for each profile in a database of over 1200 non-contributors. A wide range of LRs for true contributors was obtained, as true contributors' alleles may be labeled at some or all of the tested loci. However, the LRs were consistent with OCME's qualitative assessments of the results. The second set of data was used to evaluate FST LR results when the test sample in the prosecution hypothesis of the LR is not a contributor to the mixture. With this validation, we demonstrate that LRs generated using FST are consistent with, but more informative than, OCME's qualitative sample assessments and that LRs for non-contributors are appropriately assigned.

[1]  Niels Morling,et al.  Estimating the probability of allelic drop-out of STR alleles in forensic genetics. , 2009, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[2]  Peter M Vallone,et al.  Allele frequencies for 15 autosomal STR loci on U.S. Caucasian, African American, and Hispanic populations. , 2003, Journal of forensic sciences.

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

[4]  Mechthild Prinz,et al.  Optimization of a simple, automatable extraction method to recover sufficient DNA from low copy number DNA samples for generation of short tandem repeat profiles. , 2005, Croatian medical journal.

[5]  Niels Morling,et al.  Allelic drop-out probabilities estimated by logistic regression--further considerations and practical implementation. , 2012, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[6]  K. Kidd,et al.  Biphasic amplification of very dilute DNA samples via 'booster' PCR. , 1989, Nucleic acids research.

[7]  Jim Thomson,et al.  Direct comparison of post-28-cycle PCR purification and modified capillary electrophoresis methods with the 34-cycle "low copy number" (LCN) method for analysis of trace forensic DNA samples. , 2008, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[8]  Mechthild Prinz,et al.  Validation of testing and interpretation protocols for low template DNA samples using AmpFlSTR Identifiler. , 2009, Croatian medical journal.

[9]  Carissa M Krane,et al.  Empirical analysis of the STR profiles resulting from conceptual mixtures. , 2005, Journal of forensic sciences.

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

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

[12]  J. Ballantyne,et al.  Simplified Low‐Copy‐Number DNA Analysis by Post‐PCR Purification , 2007, Journal of forensic sciences.

[13]  James Curran,et al.  LoComatioN: a software tool for the analysis of low copy number DNA profiles. , 2007, Forensic science international.

[14]  P Gill,et al.  A comparison of the characteristics of profiles produced with the AMPFlSTR SGM Plus multiplex system for both standard and low copy number (LCN) STR DNA analysis. , 2001, Forensic science international.

[15]  S N Austad.  Forensic DNA typing. , 1992, Science.

[16]  J M Curran,et al.  Interpretation of repeat measurement DNA evidence allowing for multiple contributors and population substructure. , 2005, Forensic science international.

[17]  P Taberlet,et al.  Reliable genotyping of samples with very low DNA quantities using PCR. , 1996, Nucleic acids research.

[18]  H Haned,et al.  The predictive value of the maximum likelihood estimator of the number of contributors to a DNA mixture. , 2011, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[19]  John Buckleton,et al.  A universal strategy to interpret DNA profiles that does not require a definition of low-copy-number. , 2010, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[20]  Joseph B. Kadane,et al.  Match Likelihood Ratio for Uncertain Genotypes , 2009 .

[21]  A. Urquhart,et al.  DNA fingerprinting from single cells , 1997, Nature.

[22]  T Sitalaximi,et al.  Autosomal microsatellite profile of three socially diverse ethnic Tamil populations of India. , 2003, Journal of forensic sciences.

[23]  G. W. Snedecor.  Statistical Methods , 1964 .

[24]  Eric Buel,et al.  Development of an Alu-based, real-time PCR method for quantitation of human DNA in forensic samples. , 2003, Journal of forensic sciences.

[25]  R. Shaler,et al.  Maximization of STR DNA typing success for touched objects , 2006 .

[26]  M W Perlin,et al.  Linear mixture analysis: a mathematical approach to resolving mixed DNA samples. , 2001, Journal of forensic sciences.

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

[28]  Adele A. Mitchell,et al.  Estimating the number of contributors to two-, three-, and four-person mixtures containing DNA in high template and low template amounts , 2011, Croatian medical journal.

[29]  Hinda Haned,et al.  Estimating the Number of Contributors to Forensic DNA Mixtures: Does Maximum Likelihood Perform Better Than Maximum Allele Count? , 2011, Journal of forensic sciences.

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

[31]  M. Graw,et al.  DNA typing of human remains found in damp environments. , 2000, Forensic science international.

[32]  H Haned,et al.  Estimating drop-out probabilities in forensic DNA samples: a simulation approach to evaluate different models. , 2011, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[33]  Jonathan Whitaker,et al.  Interpretation of complex DNA profiles using empirical models and a method to measure their robustness. , 2008, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[34]  Mark W. Perlin,et al.  An Information Gap in DNA Evidence Interpretation , 2009, PloS one.

[35]  P. Gill,et al.  STR analysis of artificially degraded DNA-results of a collaborative European exercise. , 2004, Forensic science international.

[36]  James Curran,et al.  A graphical simulation model of the entire DNA process associated with the analysis of short tandem repeat loci , 2005, Nucleic acids research.

[37]  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.

[38]  Peter Gill,et al.  Towards understanding the effect of uncertainty in the number of contributors to DNA stains. , 2007, Forensic science international. Genetics.