Pitfalls and challenges with population assignments of individuals from admixed populations: Applying Genogeographer on Brazilian individuals.

ABSTRACT

The assignment of individuals to a population can be of importance for the identification of mass disaster victims or criminal offenders in the field of forensic genetics. This assignment is based on biostatistical methods that process data of ancestry informative markers (AIMs), which are selected based on large allele frequency differences between the populations of interest. However, population assignments of individuals with an admixed genetic background are challenging. Admixed individuals are genetic mosaics of chromosomal segments from the parental populations, which may lead to ambiguous or no population assignment. This is problematic since admixture events are a substantial part of human history. In this study, we present challenges of interpreting the evidential weight of population assignments. We used Genogeographer for likelihood ratio (LR) calculations and Brazilians as examples of admixed individuals. Brazilians are a very heterogenous population representing a three-way admixture between Native Americans, Europeans, and Africans. Ancestry informative markers were typed in a total of 589 individuals from Brazil using the Precision ID Ancestry Panel. The Brazilians were assigned to six metapopulations (East Asia, Europe, Middle East, North Africa, South-Central Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa) defined in the Genogeographer software and LRs were calculated if the AIM profile was not an outlier in all metapopulations and simulated two-way (11) admixtures of the six metapopulations. Population assignments failed for 55% of the samples. These samples had significantly higher genetic contributions from East Asia, South-Central Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, and significantly lower genetic contributions from Europe. Most of the individuals with population assignments were assigned to the metapopulations of Middle East (58%) or North Africa (36%), followed by Europe (4%), South-Central Asia (1%), and Sub-Saharan Africa (1%). For 8% of the samples, population assignments were only possible when assignments to simulated two-way (11) admixtures of the six metapopulations were considered. Most of these individuals were assigned to two-way admixtures of North Africa, South-Central Asia, or Sub-Saharan Africa. Relatively low median likelihood ratios (LRs<1000) were observed when comparing population likelihoods for Europe, Middle East, North Africa, South-Central Asia, or simulated 11 admixtures of these metapopulations. Comparisons including East Asian or Sub-Saharan African populations resulted in larger median LRs (LR>1010). The results suggested that the Precision ID Ancestry Panel provided too little information and that additional markers specifically selected for sub-continental differentiation may be required for accurate population assignment of admixed individuals. Furthermore, a Genogeographer database with additional populations including admixed populations would be advantageous for interpretation of admixed AIM profiles. It would likely increase the number of population assignments and illustrate alternatives to the most likely population, which would be valuable information for the case officer when writing the case report.