Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A mixed DNA profile controversy revisited.
Kalafut, Tim; Pugh, Simone; Gill, Peter; Abbas, Sarah; Semaan, Marie; Mansour, Issam; Curran, James; Bright, Jo-Anne; Hicks, Tacha; Wivell, Richard; Buckleton, John.
Afiliação
  • Kalafut T; Department of Forensic Science, College of Criminal Justice, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas, USA.
  • Pugh S; California Department of Justice, Redding, California, USA.
  • Gill P; Forensic Genetics Research Group, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
  • Abbas S; Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
  • Semaan M; Department of Laboratory Science and Technology, Faculty of Health Sciences, American University of Science and Technology, Beirut, Lebanon.
  • Mansour I; School of Criminal Justice, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
  • Curran J; Department of Laboratory Science and Technology, Faculty of Health Sciences, American University of Science and Technology, Beirut, Lebanon.
  • Bright JA; Department of Laboratory Science and Technology, Faculty of Health Sciences, American University of Science and Technology, Beirut, Lebanon.
  • Hicks T; Department of Statistics, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
  • Wivell R; Institute of Environmental Science and Research Limited, Auckland, New Zealand.
  • Buckleton J; Forensic Genetics Unit, University Center of Legal Medicine Lausanne - Geneva, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
J Forensic Sci ; 67(1): 128-135, 2022 Jan.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34651300
ABSTRACT
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 11 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 31 mixture, all results correctly supported that the non-donors were not contributors. The low-template 41 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.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Impressões Digitais de DNA / Repetições de Microssatélites Limite: Humans / Male Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Impressões Digitais de DNA / Repetições de Microssatélites Limite: Humans / Male Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article