GHEP-ISFG collaborative exercise on mixture profiles (GHEP-MIX06). Reporting conclusions: Results and evaluation.

One of the main goals of the Spanish and Portuguese-Speaking Group of the International Society for Forensic Genetics (GHEP-ISFG) is to promote and contribute to the development and dissemination of scientific knowledge in the field of forensic genetics. Due to this fact, GHEP-ISFG holds different working commissions that are set up to develop activities in scientific aspects of general interest. One of them, the Mixture Commission of GHEP-ISFG, has organized annually, since 2009, a collaborative exercise on analysis and interpretation of autosomal short tandem repeat (STR) mixture profiles. Until now, six exercises have been organized. At the present edition (GHEP-MIX06), with 25 participant laboratories, the exercise main aim was to assess mixture profiles results by issuing a report, from the proposal of a complex mock case. One of the conclusions obtained from this exercise is the increasing tendency of participating laboratories to validate DNA mixture profiles analysis following international recommendations. However, the results have shown some differences among them regarding the edition and also the interpretation of mixture profiles. Besides, although the last revision of ISO/IEC 17025:2017 gives indications of how results should be reported, not all laboratories strictly follow their recommendations. Regarding the statistical aspect, all those laboratories that have performed statistical evaluation of the data have employed the likelihood ratio (LR) as a parameter to evaluate the statistical compatibility. However, LR values obtained show a wide range of variation. This fact could not be attributed to the software employed, since the vast majority of laboratories that performed LR calculation employed the same software (LRmixStudio). Thus, the final allelic composition of the edited mixture profile and the parameters employed in the software could explain this data dispersion. This highlights the need, for each laboratory, to define through internal validations its criteria for editing and interpreting mixtures, and to continuous train in software handling.

Body fluid identification using a targeted mRNA massively parallel sequencing approach - results of a EUROFORGEN/EDNAP collaborative exercise.

In a previous study we presented an assay for targeted mRNA sequencing for the identification of human body fluids, optimised for the Illumina MiSeq/FGx MPS platform. This assay, together with an additional in-house designed assay for the Ion Torrent PGM/S5 platform, was the basis for a collaborative exercise within 17 EUROFORGEN and EDNAP laboratories, in order to test the efficacy of targeted mRNA sequencing to identify body fluids. The task was to analyse the supplied dried body fluid stains and, optionally, participants' own bona fide or mock casework samples of human origin, according to specified protocols. The provided primer pools for the Illumina MiSeq/FGx and the Ion Torrent PGM/S5 platforms included 33 and 29 body fluid specific targets, respectively, to identify blood, saliva, semen, vaginal secretion, menstrual blood and skin. The results demonstrated moderate to high count values in the body fluid or tissue of interest with little to no counts in non-target body fluids. There was some inter-laboratory variability in read counts, but overall the results of the laboratories were comparable in that highly expressed markers showed high read counts and less expressed markers showed lower counts. We performed a partial least squares (PLS) analysis on the data, where blood, menstrual blood, saliva and semen markers and samples clustered well. The results of this collaborative mRNA massively parallel sequencing (MPS) exercise support targeted mRNA sequencing as a reliable body fluid identification method that could be added to the repertoire of forensic MPS panels.

A GHEP-ISFG collaborative study on the genetic variation of 38 autosomal indels for human identification in different continental populations.

A collaborative effort was carried out by the Spanish and Portuguese Speaking Working Group of the International Society for Forensic Genetics (GHEP-ISFG) to promote knowledge exchange between associate laboratories interested in the implementation of indel-based methodologies and build allele frequency databases of 38 indels for forensic applications. These databases include populations from different countries that are relevant for identification and kinship investigations undertaken by the participating laboratories. Before compiling population data, participants were asked to type the 38 indels in blind samples from annual GHEP-ISFG proficiency tests, using an amplification protocol previously described. Only laboratories that reported correct results contributed with population data to this study. A total of 5839 samples were genotyped from 45 different populations from Africa, America, East Asia, Europe and Middle East. Population differentiation analysis showed significant differences between most populations studied from Africa and America, as well as between two Asian populations from China and East Timor. Low FST values were detected among most European populations. Overall diversities and parameters of forensic efficiency were high in populations from all continents.

Analysis of uni and bi-parental markers in mixture samples: Lessons from the 22nd GHEP-ISFG Intercomparison Exercise.

Since 1992, the Spanish and Portuguese-Speaking Working Group of the ISFG (GHEP-ISFG) has been organizing annual Intercomparison Exercises (IEs) coordinated by the Quality Service at the National Institute of Toxicology and Forensic Sciences (INTCF) from Madrid, aiming to provide proficiency tests for forensic DNA laboratories. Each annual exercise comprises a Basic (recently accredited under ISO/IEC 17043: 2010) and an Advanced Level, both including a kinship and a forensic module. Here, we show the results for both autosomal and sex-chromosomal STRs, and for mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in two samples included in the forensic modules, namely a mixture 2:1 (v/v) saliva/blood (M4) and a mixture 4:1 (v/v) saliva/semen (M8) out of the five items provided in the 2014 GHEP-ISFG IE. Discrepancies, other than typos or nomenclature errors (over the total allele calls), represented 6.5% (M4) and 4.7% (M8) for autosomal STRs, 15.4% (M4) and 7.8% (M8) for X-STRs, and 1.2% (M4) and 0.0% (M8) for Y-STRs. Drop-out and drop-in alleles were the main cause of errors, with laboratories using different criteria regarding inclusion of minor peaks and stutter bands. Commonly used commercial kits yielded different results for a micro-variant detected at locus D12S391. In addition, the analysis of electropherograms revealed that the proportions of the contributors detected in the mixtures varied among the participants. In regards to mtDNA analysis, besides important discrepancies in reporting heteroplasmies, there was no agreement for the results of sample M4. Thus, while some laboratories documented a single control region haplotype, a few reported unexpected profiles (suggesting contamination problems). For M8, most laboratories detected only the haplotype corresponding to the saliva. Although the GHEP-ISFG has already a large experience in IEs, the present multi-centric study revealed challenges that still exist related to DNA mixtures interpretation. Overall, the results emphasize the need for further research and training actions in order to improve the analysis of mixtures among the forensic practitioners.

Forensic ancestry analysis with two capillary electrophoresis ancestry informative marker (AIM) panels: Results of a collaborative EDNAP exercise.

There is increasing interest in forensic ancestry tests, which are part of a growing number of DNA analyses that can enhance routine profiling by obtaining additional genetic information about unidentified DNA donors. Nearly all ancestry tests use single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), but these currently rely on SNaPshot single base extension chemistry that can fail to detect mixed DNA. Insertion-deletion polymorphism (Indel) tests have been developed using dye-labeled primers that allow direct capillary electrophoresis detection of PCR products (PCR-to-CE). PCR-to-CE maintains the direct relationship between input DNA and signal strength as each marker is detected with a single dye, so mixed DNA is more reliably detected. We report the results of a collaborative inter-laboratory exercise of 19 participants (15 from the EDNAP European DNA Profiling group) that assessed a 34-plex SNP test using SNaPshot and a 46-plex Indel test using PCR-to-CE. Laboratories were asked to type five samples with different ancestries and detect an additional mixed DNA sample. Statistical inference of ancestry was made by participants using the Snipper online Bayes analysis portal plus an optional PCA module that analyzes the genotype data alongside calculation of Bayes likelihood ratios. Exercise results indicated consistent genotyping performance from both tests, reaching a particularly high level of reliability for the Indel test. SNP genotyping gave 93.5% concordance (compared to the organizing laboratory's data) that rose to 97.3% excluding one laboratory with a large number of miscalled genotypes. Indel genotyping gave a higher concordance rate of 99.8% and a reduced no-call rate compared to SNP analysis. All participants detected the mixture from their Indel peak height data and successfully assigned the correct ancestry to the other samples using Snipper, with the exception of one laboratory with SNP miscalls that incorrectly assigned ancestry of two samples and did not obtain informative likelihood ratios for a third. Therefore, successful ancestry assignments were achieved by participants in 92 of 95 Snipper analyses. This exercise demonstrates that ancestry inference tests based on binary marker sets can be readily adopted by laboratories that already have well-established CE regimes in place. The Indel test proved to be easy to use and allowed all exercise participants to detect the DNA mixture as well as achieving complete and concordant profiles in nearly all cases. Lastly, two participants successfully ran parallel next-generation sequencing analyses (each using different systems) and achieved high levels of genotyping concordance using the exercise PCR primer mixes unmodified.

RNA/DNA co-analysis from human skin and contact traces--results of a sixth collaborative EDNAP exercise.

The European DNA profiling group (EDNAP) organized a sixth collaborative exercise on RNA/DNA co-analysis for body fluid/tissue identification and STR profiling. The task was to identify skin samples/contact traces using specific RNA biomarkers and test three housekeeping genes for their suitability as reference genes. Eight stains, a skin RNA dilution series and, optionally, bona fide or mock casework samples of human or non-human origin were analyzed by 22 participating laboratories using RNA extraction or RNA/DNA co-extraction methods. Two sets of previously described skin-specific markers were used: skin1 pentaplex (LCE1C, LCE1D, LCE2D, IL1F7 and CCL27) and skin2 triplex (LOR, KRT9 and CDSN) in conjunction with a housekeeping gene, HKG, triplex (B2M, UBC and UCE). The laboratories used different chemistries and instrumentation. All laboratories were able to successfully isolate and detect mRNA in contact traces (e.g., human skin, palm-, hand- and fingerprints, clothing, car interiors, computer accessories and electronic devices). The simultaneous extraction of RNA and DNA provides an opportunity for positive identification of the tissue source of origin by mRNA profiling as well as a simultaneous identification of the body fluid donor by STR profiling. The skin markers LCE1C and LOR and the housekeeping gene marker B2M were detected in the majority of contact traces. Detection of the other markers was inconsistent, possibly due to the low amounts and/or poor quality of the genetic material present in shed skin cells. The results of this and the previous collaborative RNA exercises support RNA profiling as a reliable body fluid/tissue identification method that can easily be combined with current STR typing technology.