A diagnosis of the primary difference between EuroForMix and STRmix™.

There is interest in comparing the output, principally the likelihood ratio, from the two probabilistic genotyping software EuroForMix (EFM) and STRmix™. Many of these comparison studies are descriptive and make little or no effort to diagnose the cause of difference. There are fundamental differences between EFM and STRmix™ that are causative of the largest set of likelihood ratio differences. This set of differences is for false donors where there are many instances of LRs just above or below 1 for EFM that give much lower LRs in STRmix™. This is caused by the separate estimation of parameters such as allele height variance and mixture proportion using MLE under Hp and Ha for EFM. This can result in very different estimations of these parameters under Hp and Ha . It results in a departure from calibration for EFM in the region of LRs just above and below 1.

An Investigation into Compound Likelihood Ratios for Forensic DNA Mixtures.

Simple propositions are defined as those with one POI and the remaining contributors unknown under Hp and all unknown contributors under Ha. Conditional propositions are defined as those with one POI, one or more assumed contributors, and the remaining contributors (if any) unknown under Hp, and the assumed contributor(s) and N unknown contributors under Ha. In this study, compound propositions are those with multiple POI and the remaining contributors unknown under Hp and all unknown contributors under Ha. We study the performance of these three proposition sets on thirty-two samples (two laboratories × four NOCs × four mixtures) consisting of four mixtures, each with N = 2, N = 3, N = 4, and N = 5 contributors using the probabilistic genotyping software, STRmix™. In this study, it was found that conditional propositions have a much higher ability to differentiate true from false donors than simple propositions. Compound propositions can misstate the weight of evidence given the propositions strongly in either direction.

Exploring likelihood ratios assigned for siblings of the true mixture contributor as an alternate contributor.

Relatives tend to have more DNA in common than unrelated people. The closer the biological relationship, the higher the chance of alleles being identical by descent between the individuals. Therefore, when considering a mixed DNA profile, close relatives of the true contributor may not always be excluded as a possible contributor to a mixture due to allele sharing. In these situations, it might be more appropriate under the alternate proposition to consider that the DNA could have originated from a relative of the person of interest rather than an unrelated individual. The probabilistic genotyping software STRmix™ automatically provides LRs considering close biological relatives as alternate sources of the DNA. In this paper, we investigate the support for siblings of the true contributor to a mixture (who are not present in the mixture themselves). We interpret the mixtures and assign LRs using STRmix™ and investigate whether the resulting LRs could be used to indicate whether the true contributor could be a sibling of the POI. Most siblings will have one or more alleles that are not observed in the mixture profile. Support for siblings to have contributed can only occur when allelic dropout is a possibility at the loci where the siblings have alleles that are not observed in the profile. In these data, that was only observed in components with assigned template of 588 rfu or less.

A mixed DNA profile controversy revisited.

Semaan et al. (J Forensic Res, 2020, 11, 453) discuss a mock case "where eight different individuals [P1 through P8 ] could not be excluded in a mixed DNA analysis. Even though … expert DNA mixture analysis software was used." Two of these are the true donors. The LRs reported are incorrect due to the incorrect entry of propositions into LRmix Studio. This forced the software to account for most of the alleles as drop-in, resulting in LRs 60-70 orders of magnitude larger than expected. P1 , P2 , P4 , P5 , and P8 can be manually excluded using peak heights. This has relevance when using LRmix which does not use peak heights. We extend the work using the same two reference genotypes who were the true contributors as Semaan et al. (J Forensic Res, 2020, 11, 453). We simulate three two-donor mixtures with peak heights using these two genotypes and analyze using STRmix™. For the simulated 1:1 mixture, one of the non-donors' LRs supported him being a contributor when no conditioning was used. When considered in combination with any other potential donors (i.e., with conditioning), this non-donor was correctly eliminated. For the 3:1 mixture, all results correctly supported that the non-donors were not contributors. The low-template 4:1 mixture LRs with no conditioning showed support for all eight profiles as donors. However, the results from pair-wise conditioning showed that only the two ground truth donors had LRs supporting that they were contributors to the mixture. We recommend the use of peak heights and conditioning profiles, as this allows better sensitivity and specificity even when the persons share many alleles.

Validation of a top-down DNA profile analysis for database searching using a fully continuous probabilistic genotyping model.

Slooten described a method of targeting major contributors in mixed DNA profiles and comparing them to individuals on a DNA database. The method worked by taking incrementally more peak information from the profile (based on the peak contribution), and using a semi-continuous model, calculating likelihood ratios for the comparison to database individuals. We describe the performance of this "top down approach" to profile interpretation within probabilistic genotyping software employing a fully continuous model. We interpret both complex constructed profiles where ground truth is known and casework profiles from non-suspect crimes. The interpretation of constructed four- and five- person mixtures demonstrated good discrimination power between contributors and non-contributors to the mixtures. Not all known contributors linked, and this is expected, particularly for minor contributors of DNA to the profile, or when the DNA from contributors was in relatively equal contributions. This finding was also reported by Slooten for the semi-continuous application of the approach. The maximum observed LR was shown to not exceed the LR obtained after a standard interpretation approach outside of that expected due to Monte Carlo variation. The interpretation of 91 complex profiles from no-suspect casework demonstrated that approximately 75% of profiles returned a link to someone on a database of known individuals. With a yearly average of 110 no-suspect cases that fall into this too-complex category at Forensic Science SA, the top down analysis, if applied to all such profiles, would represent an increase of 83 links per year of investigative information that could be provided to investigators.