A four-step mutation at D22S1045 in one complex paternity case when the brother of the alleged father hypothesis is evaluated.

We report one complex paternity case presenting a presumable paternal four-step STR mutation between the alleged father (AF) and child; the complexity of the case required the AF-brother hypothesis to be discarded without including this DNA sample. A total of 23 autosomal STR loci included in the Powerplex Fusion® and Globalfiler™ kits confirmed one isolated mismatch for D22S1045 between the AF (17/17) and the male child (13/15) in the presence of the mother (15/15). In this case, the STR structure and father's age do not seem to have contributed to promote the observed multistep mutation. The Paternity Index (PI) based on 23 autosomal STRs did not favor the AF paternity over the AF-brother hypothesis based on a flat prior (PI = 0.1217; W = 10.85%). For that reason, we included 38 autosomal human identification (HID) insertions-deletions (indels) and 20 retrotransposon insertion polymorphisms (RIPs) contained in the InnoTyper® 21 kit. Although these biallelic markers favored the AF paternity rather than the AF-brother hypothesis (LR = 110.3; W = 99.1%), the global PI based on 81 autosomal markers supported moderately the AF paternity hypothesis (LR = 13.4; W = 93.1%). The application of different mutation models showed a consistent support to the AF paternity hypothesis (PI = 93.1-99.95%), which could be useful for interpretation in these multistep STR mutation cases. In brief, we showed the impact of a four-step mutation at D22S1045 to obtain definitive paternity conclusions, particularly under a complex scenario when the AF-brother hypothesis is assessed. Forensic genomics arises as the next option for similar complex paternity cases.

Correction to: A four-step mutation at D22S1045 in one complex paternity case when the brother of the alleged father hypothesis is evaluated.

This article was published online with an error. Given names and family names of the authors were interchanged. The correct author names are presented above. The original article has been corrected.