Probabilistic genotyping software: An overview.

The interpretation of mixed profiles from DNA evidentiary material is one of the more challenging duties of the forensic scientist. Traditionally, analysts have used a "binary" approach to interpretation where inferred genotypes are either included or excluded from the mixture using a stochastic threshold and other biological parameters such as heterozygote balance, mixture ratio, and stutter ratios. As the sensitivity of STR multiplexes and capillary electrophoresis instrumentation improved over the past 25 years, coupled with the change in the type of evidence being submitted for analysis (from high quality and quantity (often single-source) stains to low quality and quantity (often mixed) "touch" samples), the complexity of DNA profile interpretation has equally increased. This review provides a historical perspective on the movement from binary methods of interpretation to probabilistic methods of interpretation. We describe the two approaches to probabilistic genotyping (semi-continuous and fully continuous) and address issues such as validation and court acceptance. Areas of future needs for probabilistic software are discussed.

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

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

[3]  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.

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

[5]  SallyAnn Harbison,et al.  Interpretation of DNA mixtures--Australian and New Zealand consensus on principles. , 2009, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[6]  Simone Gittelson,et al.  The paradigm shift in DNA profile interpretation. , 2017, Forensic Science International: Genetics.

[7]  A Statistical Framework for the Interpretation of mtDNA Mixtures: Forensic and Medical Applications , 2011, PloS one.

[8]  B Budowle,et al.  Validation of short tandem repeats (STRs) for forensic usage: performance testing of fluorescent multiplex STR systems and analysis of authentic and simulated forensic samples. , 2001, Journal of forensic sciences.

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

[10]  Simone Gittelson,et al.  The Probabilistic Genotyping Software STRmix: Utility and Evidence for its Validity , 2018, Journal of forensic sciences.

[11]  B. Weir,et al.  Interpreting DNA mixtures. , 1997, Journal of forensic sciences.

[12]  John Buckleton,et al.  Is the 2p rule always conservative? , 2006, Forensic science international.

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

[14]  Jo-Anne Bright,et al.  Examination of the variability in mixed DNA profile parameters for the Identifiler multiplex. , 2010, Forensic science international. Genetics.

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

[16]  Duncan Taylor,et al.  Developing allelic and stutter peak height models for a continuous method of DNA interpretation. , 2013, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[17]  Duncan Taylor,et al.  Developmental validation of STRmix™, expert software for the interpretation of forensic DNA profiles. , 2016, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[18]  Mechthild Prinz,et al.  Validation of a DNA mixture statistics tool incorporating allelic drop-out and drop-in. , 2012, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[19]  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.

[20]  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.

[21]  Dirk Labudde,et al.  GenoProof Mixture 3—New software and process to resolve complex DNA mixtures , 2017 .

[22]  Angel Carracedo,et al.  DNA mixtures in forensic casework: a 4-year retrospective study. , 2003, Forensic science international.

[23]  Jo-Anne Bright,et al.  Comparison of the performance of different models for the interpretation of low level mixed DNA profiles , 2014, Electrophoresis.

[24]  K Slooten,et al.  Contributors are a nuisance (parameter) for DNA mixture evidence evaluation. , 2018, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[25]  W. Pflug,et al.  The German Stain Commission: recommendations for the interpretation of mixed stains , 2008, International Journal of Legal Medicine.

[26]  Peter Gill,et al.  A comparison of stochastic variation in mixed and unmixed casework and synthetic samples. , 2012, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[27]  Duncan Taylor,et al.  Utilising allelic dropout probabilities estimated by logistic regression in casework. , 2014, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[28]  W R Mayr,et al.  DNA Commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics (ISFG): an update of the recommendations on the use of Y-STRs in forensic analysis , 2006, International Journal of Legal Medicine.

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

[30]  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.

[31]  Steffen L. Lauritzen,et al.  A gamma model for {DNA} mixture analyses , 2007 .

[32]  Norah Rudin,et al.  Analysis of allelic drop-out using the Identifiler(®) and PowerPlex(®) 16 forensic STR typing systems. , 2014, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[33]  Peter Gill,et al.  National recommendations of the Technical UK DNA working group on mixture interpretation for the NDNAD and for court going purposes. , 2008, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[34]  James Curran,et al.  A discussion of the merits of random man not excluded and likelihood ratios. , 2008, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[35]  Peter Gill,et al.  Validation of probabilistic genotyping software for use in forensic DNA casework: Definitions and illustrations. , 2016, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[36]  Peter Gill,et al.  Genotyping and interpretation of STR-DNA: Low-template, mixtures and database matches-Twenty years of research and development. , 2015, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[37]  P Gill,et al.  DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the evaluation of STR typing results that may include drop-out and/or drop-in using probabilistic methods. , 2012, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[38]  P A Barrio,et al.  GHEP-ISFG collaborative exercise on mixture profiles (GHEP-MIX06). Reporting conclusions: Results and evaluation. , 2018, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[39]  Bruce Budowle,et al.  NIST interlaboratory studies involving DNA mixtures (MIX13): A modern analysis. , 2018, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[40]  D. Balding,et al.  Evaluating forensic DNA profiles using peak heights, allowing for multiple donors, allelic dropout and stutters. , 2013, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[41]  Duncan Taylor,et al.  Do low template DNA profiles have useful quantitative data? , 2015, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[42]  J. A. Lindsey,et al.  Validation and population studies of the loci LDLR, GYPA, HBGG, D7S8, and Gc (PM loci), and HLA-DQ alpha using a multiplex amplification and typing procedure. , 1995, Journal of forensic sciences.

[43]  Y-profile evidence: Close paternal relatives and mixtures. , 2019, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[44]  Jordan M. Eizenga,et al.  A phylogenetic approach for haplotype analysis of sequence data from complex mitochondrial mixtures. , 2017, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[45]  Duncan Taylor,et al.  Investigating a common approach to DNA profile interpretation using probabilistic software. , 2015, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[46]  E. Alladio,et al.  DNA mixtures interpretation - A proof-of-concept multi-software comparison highlighting different probabilistic methods' performances on challenging samples. , 2018, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[47]  Duncan Taylor,et al.  Using probabilistic theory to develop interpretation guidelines for Y-STR profiles. , 2016, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[48]  Duncan Taylor,et al.  A series of recommended tests when validating probabilistic DNA profile interpretation software. , 2015, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[49]  Bruce Budowle,et al.  Evaluation of the Illumina(®) Beta Version ForenSeq™ DNA Signature Prep Kit for use in genetic profiling. , 2016, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[50]  J Buckleton,et al.  DNA Commission of the International Society for Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the validation of software programs performing biostatistical calculations for forensic genetics applications. , 2016, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[51]  Duncan Taylor,et al.  Using continuous DNA interpretation methods to revisit likelihood ratio behaviour. , 2014, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[52]  Jennifer D. Churchill,et al.  Massively parallel sequencing-enabled mixture analysis of mitochondrial DNA samples , 2018, International Journal of Legal Medicine.

[53]  Jo-Anne Bright,et al.  A comparison of statistical models for the analysis of complex forensic DNA profiles. , 2014, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[54]  Duncan Taylor,et al.  Interpreting forensic DNA profiling evidence without specifying the number of contributors. , 2014, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[55]  Peter M Vallone,et al.  STR allele sequence variation: Current knowledge and future issues. , 2015, Forensic science international. Genetics.

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

[57]  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.

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

[59]  C. Børsting,et al.  Sequencing of mitochondrial genomes using the Precision ID mtDNA Whole Genome Panel , 2018, Electrophoresis.

[60]  Michael D. Coble,et al.  Sequence-based analysis of stutter at STR loci: Characterization and utility , 2015 .

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

[62]  Niels Morling,et al.  Interpretation of DNA mixtures--European consensus on principles. , 2007, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[63]  M. Holland,et al.  Second generation sequencing allows for mtDNA mixture deconvolution and high resolution detection of heteroplasmy , 2011, Croatian medical journal.

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

[65]  S. Greenspoon,et al.  Establishing the Limits of TrueAllele® Casework: A Validation Study , 2015, Journal of forensic sciences.

[66]  P. Gill,et al.  PENDULUM--a guideline-based approach to the interpretation of STR mixtures. , 2005, Forensic science international.

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

[68]  John Buckleton,et al.  Application of Random Match Probability Calculations to Mixed STR Profiles , 2013, Journal of forensic sciences.

[69]  Jo-Anne Bright,et al.  The variability in likelihood ratios due to different mechanisms. , 2015, Forensic science international. Genetics.

[70]  Dieter Deforce,et al.  My-Forensic-Loci-queries (MyFLq) framework for analysis of forensic STR data generated by massive parallel sequencing. , 2014, Forensic science international. Genetics.

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

[72]  J. Whitaker,et al.  Analysis and interpretation of mixed forensic stains using DNA STR profiling. , 1998, Forensic science international.

[73]  J A Lambert,et al.  Taking account of peak areas when interpreting mixed DNA profiles. , 1998, Journal of forensic sciences.

[74]  I W Evett,et al.  A guide to interpreting single locus profiles of DNA mixtures in forensic cases. , 1991, Journal - Forensic Science Society.