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.

Estimation of population specific values of theta for sequence-based STR profiles.

We describe the estimation of θ (theta) values from autosomal STR sequencing data for five metapopulations. The data were compiled from 20 publications and included 39 datasets comprising a total of 7005 samples. The estimates are suitable for use within the calculation of match probabilities in forensic casework. We also have constructed a phylogenetic tree using this data that aligns with our understanding of human evolution.

Addressing uncertain assumptions in DNA evidence evaluation.

Evidential value of DNA mixtures is typically expressed by a likelihood ratio. However, selecting appropriate propositions can be contentious, because assumptions may need to be made around, for example, the contribution of a complainant's profile, or relatedness between contributors. A choice made one way or another disregards any uncertainty that may be present about such an assumption. To address this, a complex proposition that considers multiple sub-propositions with different assumptions may be more appropriate. While the use of complex propositions has been advocated in the literature, the uptake in casework has been limited. We provide a mathematical framework for evaluating DNA evidence given complex propositions and discuss its implementation in the DBLR™ software. The software simultaneously handles multiple mixed samples, reference profiles and relationships as described by a pedigree, which unlocks a variety of applications. We provide several examples to illustrate how complex propositions can efficiently evaluate DNA evidence. The addition of this feature to DBLR™ provides a tool to approach the long-accepted, but often impractical suggestion that propositions should be exhaustive within a case context.

Extending the discrete Laplace method: incorporating multi-copy loci, partial repeats and null alleles.

The discrete Laplace method can be used to estimate the frequency of a Y-chromosomal STR haplotype using a random sample from the population. Two limitations of the method are the assumptions that each profile has exactly one allele at every locus and that this allele has an integer repeat number. We relax these assumptions to allow for multi-copy loci, partial repeats and null alleles. We show how the parameters to the extension of the model can be estimated by numerical optimisation using an off-the-shelf solver. Concordance with the discrete Laplace method is obtained when the data satisfy the more stringent assumptions of the original method. We also investigate the performance of the (extended) discrete Laplace method when used to assign match probabilities for haplotypes. A simulation study shows that as more loci are used, match probabilities are underestimated more severely. This is consistent with the hypothesis that the discrete Laplace method cannot model the matches that arise by being identical by descent (IBD). As the number of loci increases the fraction of matches that are IBD increases. Simulation provides support that the discrete Laplace can model those matches that arise from identity by state (IBS) only.

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.

Developmental validation of STRmix™ NGS, a probabilistic genotyping tool for the interpretation of autosomal STRs from forensic profiles generated using NGS.

We describe the developmental validation of the probabilistic genotyping software - STRmix™ NGS - developed for the interpretation of forensic DNA profiles containing autosomal STRs generated using next generation sequencing (NGS) also known as massively parallel sequencing (MPS) technologies. Developmental validation was carried out in accordance with the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (SWGDAM) Guidelines for the Validation of Probabilistic Genotyping Systems and the International Society for Forensic Genetics (ISFG) recommendations and included sensitivity and specificity testing, accuracy, precision, and the interpretation of case-types samples. The results of developmental validation demonstrate the appropriateness of the software for the interpretation of profiles developed using NGS technology.

Combining artificial neural network classification with fully continuous probabilistic genotyping to remove the need for an analytical threshold and electropherogram reading.

Standard processing of electrophoretic data within a forensic DNA laboratory is for one (or two) analysts to designate peaks as either artefactual or non-artefactual in a process commonly referred to as profile 'reading'. Recently, FaSTR™ DNA has been developed to use artificial neural networks to automatically classify fluorescence within an electropherogram as baseline, allele, stutter or pull-up. These classifications are based on probabilities assigned to each timepoint (scan) within the electropherogram. Instead of using the probabilities to assign fluorescence into a category they can be used directly in the profile analysis. This has a number of advantages; increased objectivity in DNA profile processing, the removal for the need for analysts to read profiles, the removal for the need of an analytical threshold. Models within STRmix™ were extended to incorporate the peak label probabilities assigned by FaSTR™ DNA. The performance of the model extensions was tested on a DNA mixture dataset, comprising 2-4 person samples. This dataset was processed in a 'standard' manner using an analytical threshold of 50rfu, analyst peak designations and STRmix™ V2.9 models. The same dataset was then processed in an automated manner using no analytical threshold, no analysts reading the profile and using the STRmix™ models extended to incorporate peak label probabilities. Both datasets were compared to the known DNA donors and a set of non-donors. The result between the two processes was a very close performance, but with a large efficiency gain in the 0rfu process. Utilising peak label probabilities opens up the possibility for a range of workflow process efficiency gains, but beyond this allows full use of all data within an electropherogram.

Study of CTS DNA Proficiency Tests with Regard to DNA Mixture Interpretation: A NIST Scientific Foundation Review.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology has released a document entitled DNA Mixture Interpretation: A NIST Scientific Foundation Review for public comment. This has become known as the Draft NIST Foundation Review. It contains the statement: "Across these 69 data sets, there were 80 false negatives and 18 false positives reported from 110,408 possible responses (27,602 participants × two evidence items × two reference items). In the past five years, the number of participants using PGS has grown." We examine a set of proficiency test results to determine if these NIST statements could be justified. The summary reports for each relevant forensic biology test (Forensic Biology, Semen, and Mixture) in the years 2018-2021 were reviewed. Data were also provided to us by CTS upon our request. None of the false positives or negatives could be attributed to the mixture interpretation strategy and certainly not to the use of PGS.

Guiding proposition setting in forensic DNA interpretation.

There is a general reluctance to use conditioning profiles when forming propositions for cases where the evidence is a DNA mixture. However, the use of conditioning profiles improves the ability to differentiate true from false donors. There are at least four situations where this decision making is at its most difficult. These are:Rigorous mathematical treatment, given by Slooten and others, appears to offer strong guidance for these situations. This treatment assumes that the prior probabilities for conditioning, or not conditioning, on any individual are not extreme. It is when these prior probabilities appear ambiguous that the decision to condition or not can appear to be problematic. This is often the situation found in casework. In this paper we attempt to show that such situations may benefit most from following such guidance. A lower bound on the Bayes factor can be obtained by finding the highest LR that includes the POI and dividing by the highest LR that does not include the POI. These two highest LRs may be found with and without the disputed conditioning profile. The resultant lower bound is on the BF for the inclusion of the POI without directly assuming the disputed conditioning profile. Adopting this approach would both minimize adventitious inclusions and approximate an exhaustive set of propositions.

A Logical Framework for Forensic DNA Interpretation.

The forensic community has devoted much effort over the last decades to the development of a logical framework for forensic interpretation, which is essential for the safe administration of justice. We review the research and guidelines that have been published and provide examples of how to implement them in casework. After a discussion on uncertainty in the criminal trial and the roles that the DNA scientist may take, we present the principles of interpretation for evaluative reporting. We show how their application helps to avoid a common fallacy and present strategies that DNA scientists can apply so that they do not transpose the conditional. We then discuss the hierarchy of propositions and explain why it is considered a fundamental concept for the evaluation of biological results and the differences between assessing results given propositions that are at the source level or the activity level. We show the importance of pre-assessment, especially when the questions relate to the alleged activities, and when transfer and persistence need to be considered by the scientists to guide the court. We conclude with a discussion on statement writing and testimony. This provides guidance on how DNA scientists can report in a balanced, transparent, and logical way.

Investigation into the effect of mixtures comprising related people on non-donor likelihood ratios, and potential practises to mitigate providing misleading opinions.

The interpretation of mixtures containing related individuals can be difficult due to allele sharing between the contributors. Challenges include the assignment of the number of contributors (NoC) to the mixture with the under assignment of NoC resulting in false exclusions of true donors. Non-donating relatives of the true contributors to mixtures of close relatives can result in likelihood ratios supporting their adventitious inclusion within the mixture. We examine the effect of non-donor likelihood ratios on mixtures of first order relatives. Mixtures of full siblings and parent-child were created by mixing the DNA from known family members in vitro, or by in silico simulation. Mixtures were interpreted using the probabilistic genotyping software STRmix™ and likelihood ratios were assigned for the true donors and non-donors who were either further relatives of the true donors or unrelated to the true donors. The two donor balanced mixtures deconvoluted straightforwardly when analysed as NoC = 2 giving approximately the experimental design 1:1 ratio. When analysed as NoC = 3 a very large number of non-donor genotypes produced LRs close to 1 including many instances of adventitious support. The in vitro three donor balanced mixtures proved difficult to assign as NoC = 3 by a blind examination of the profile. It is likely that many of these would be misassigned as NoC = 2. The analysis of the in vitro and in silico mixtures assuming NoC = 3 with no use of a conditioning profile or with the use of a conditioning profile but without informed priors on the mixture proportions (Mx priors) was ineffective. If the profile can be assigned as NoC = 3 then assignment of the Mx priors is straightforward. This analysis gave no false exclusions. Adventitious support did happen for relatives with high allele sharing. Adventitious support was not observed for any unrelated non-donors. The analysis of the three-person mixtures as NoC = 2 produced many false exclusions and fewer instances of adventitious support. The three donor unbalanced mixtures could all be assigned as NoC= 3. Analysis without Mx priors produced an alternate genotype explanation.

Streamlining the decision-making process for international DNA kinship matching using Worldwide allele frequencies and tailored cutoff log10LR thresholds.

The identification of human remains belonging to missing persons is one of the main challenges for forensic genetics. Although other means of identification can be applied to missing person investigations, DNA is often extremely valuable to further support or refute potential associations. When reference DNA samples cannot be collected from personal items belonging to a missing person, a direct DNA identification cannot be carried out. However, identifications can be made indirectly using DNA from the missing person's relatives. The ranking of likelihood ratio (LR) values, which measure the fit of a missing person for any given pedigree, is often the first step in selecting candidates in a DNA database. Although implementing DNA kinship matching in a national environment is feasible, many challenges need to be resolved before applying this method to an international configuration. In this study, we present an innovative and intuitive method to perform international DNA kinship matching and facilitate the comparison of DNA profiles when the ancestry is unknown or unsure and/or when different marker sets are used. This straightforward method, which is based on calculations performed with the DNA matching software BONAPARTE, Worldwide allele frequencies and tailored cutoff log10LR thresholds, allows for the classification of potential candidates according to the strength of the DNA evidence and the predicted proportion of adventitious matches. This is a powerful method for streamlining the decision-making process in missing person investigations and DVI processes, especially when there are low numbers of overlapping typed STRs. Intuitive interpretation tables and a decision tree will help strengthen international data comparison for the identification of reported missing individuals discovered outside their national borders.

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.

Evaluating DNA Mixtures with Contributors from Different Populations Using Probabilistic Genotyping.

It is common practice to evaluate DNA profiling evidence with likelihood ratios using allele frequency estimates from a relevant population. When multiple populations may be relevant, a choice has to be made. For two-person mixtures without dropout, it has been reported that conservative estimates can be obtained by using the Person of Interest's population with a θ value of 3%. More accurate estimates can be obtained by explicitly modelling different populations. One option is to present a minimum likelihood ratio across populations; another is to present a stratified likelihood ratio that incorporates a weighted average of likelihoods across multiple populations. For high template single source profiles, any difference between the methods is immaterial as far as conclusions are concerned. We revisit this issue in the context of potentially low-level and mixed samples where the contributors may originate from different populations and study likelihood ratio behaviour. We first present a method for evaluating DNA profiling evidence using probabilistic genotyping when the contributors may originate from different ethnic groups. In this method, likelihoods are weighted across a prior distribution that assigns sample donors to ethnic groups. The prior distribution can be constrained such that all sample donors are from the same ethnic group, or all permutations can be considered. A simulation study is used to determine the effect of either assumption on the likelihood ratio. The likelihood ratios are also compared to the minimum likelihood ratio across populations. We demonstrate that the common practise of taking a minimum likelihood ratio across populations is not always conservative when FST=0. Population stratification methods may also be non-conservative in some cases. When FST>0 is used in the likelihood ratio calculations, as is recommended, all compared approaches become conservative on average to varying degrees.

A Review of Probabilistic Genotyping Systems: EuroForMix, DNAStatistX and STRmix™.

Probabilistic genotyping has become widespread. EuroForMix and DNAStatistX are both based upon maximum likelihood estimation using a γ model, whereas STRmix™ is a Bayesian approach that specifies prior distributions on the unknown model parameters. A general overview is provided of the historical development of probabilistic genotyping. Some general principles of interpretation are described, including: the application to investigative vs. evaluative reporting; detection of contamination events; inter and intra laboratory studies; numbers of contributors; proposition setting and validation of software and its performance. This is followed by details of the evolution, utility, practice and adoption of the software discussed.

A comparison of likelihood ratios obtained from EuroForMix and STRmix™.

Likelihood ratios (LR) differences between the probabilistic genotyping software EuroForMix and STRmix™ are examined. After considering differences in the allele probabilities, the LRs from both software for an unambiguous single-source profile were identical (four significant figures). LRs from both software for an unambiguous single-source profile with alleles previously unseen in the allele frequency database (rare alleles) were the same (three significant figures) for θ = 0.01. Due to differences in the minimum allele frequencies, the LRs differed by three orders of magnitude when θ = 0. For both software, the LRs for a single-source dilution series decreased as the input amount decreased. The LRs from both software were within an order of magnitude for known contributors. The largest difference was where the target input amount was 0.0156 ng: The LREuroForMix was 2.1 × 1025 and the LRSTRmix was 8.0 × 1024 . Both software show similar LR behavior with respect to mixture ratio. For two person mixtures the LR increases for both the major and the minor as the ratio moves away from 1:1. The LR for the major stabilizes at about 3:1 whereas the LR for the minor reaches its maximum at about 3:1 and then declines. Greater differences in LR were observed between EuroForMix and STRmix™ for mixtures. One-hundred and twenty-nine mixtures from the PROVEDIt dataset were compared. LRs for 84% of the comparisons for known contributors without rare alleles were within two orders of magnitude. Five divergent results were investigated, and a manual intervention approach was applied where appropriate.

Can a reference 'match' an evidence profile if these have no loci in common?

Cold case reinvestigations are a common occurrence. Occasionally some of the original work was conducted up to 30 years ago using profiling systems of the early 1990s, which targeted HLA-DQA1, ApoB, D1S80 and D17S5. When contemporary work is carried out, if a suspect is identified they will be profiled in contemporary profiling kits such as GlobalFiler. It would be common to then also attempt to profile the evidence profiles in the same contemporary profiling kit. Imagine a scenario where two evidence samples, E1 and E2, had previously produced single-source profiles, but only E2 had any DNA extract left to re-profile with GlobalFiler. At the old loci E1 matched E2, and at the new loci E2 matched the suspect reference. Of interest to the investigation was whether anything could be said about the suspect being a donor of DNA to E1 even though the reference of the suspect and the profile from E1 had no loci in common, by using the information from the profile of E2. This paper explores that possibility.