Relaxing the assumption of unrelatedness in the numerator and denominator of likelihood ratios for DNA mixtures.

DNA mixtures will have multiple donors under both the prosecution and alternate propositions when assigning a likelihood ratio for forensic DNA evidence. These donors are usually assumed to be unrelated to each other. In this paper, we make a small, preliminary examination of the potential effect of relaxing this assumption. We consider the simple situation of a two-person mixture with no dropout and a two-person major/minor mixture with dropout of the minor contributor. We make no adjustment for subpopulation effects. Mixtures were simulated under two assumptions: 1. that the donors were siblings 2. or that they were unrelated. Both unresolvable and major/minor mixtures were considered. We compared the likelihood ratio assuming sibship with the likelihood ratio assuming no relatedness. The LR for hypotheses assuming no relatedness is less than the LR assuming relatedness approximately 95% of the time when relatives are present in the mixture.

The interpretation of mixed DNA profiles from a mother, father, and child trio.

We report the interpretation of three-person mixed DNA profiles constructed from DNA from one mother, father, and child trio using the probabilistic genotyping software STRmix™. A total of 40 mixtures were examined, with varying total template and mixture proportions of the three contributors. In addition, mixtures were artificially degraded at four different rates to test the effects of degradation on the interpretation of mother, father and child trios. A total of 560 STRmix™ analyses were undertaken, examining four different interpretation strategies. Reasonable results were only achieved by conditioning on one parent as an assumed donor and applying a user-informed prior to the mixture proportion of both parents. For each of the 40 amplified mixtures, 10,000 non-donors were compared, conditioning on one parent and applying a user-informed prior to the mixture proportion of both parents. This leads to 800,000 non-donor tests.

Are low LRs reliable?

To answer the question "Are low likelihood ratios reliable?" requires both a definition of reliable and then a test of whether low likelihood ratios (LRs) meet that definition. We offer, from a purely statistical standpoint, that reliability can be determined by assessing whether the rate of inclusionary support for non-donors over many cases is not larger than expected from the LR value. Thus, it is not the magnitude of the LR alone that determines reliability. Turing's rule is used to inform the expected rate of non-donor inclusionary support, where the rate of non-donor inclusionary support is at most the reciprocal of the LR, i.e. Pr(LR > x|Ha) ≤1/x. There are parallel concerns about whether the value of the evidence can be communicated. We do not discuss that in depth here although it is an important consideration to be addressed with training. In this paper, we use a mixture of real and simulated data to show that the rate of non-donor inclusionary support for these data is significantly lower than the upper bound given by Turing's rule. We take this as strong evidence that low LRs are reliable.

Testing whether stutter and low-level DNA peaks are additive.

Peaks in an electropherogram could represent alleles, stutter product, or a combination of allele and stutter. Continuous probabilistic genotyping (PG) systems model the heights of peaks in an additive manner: for a shared or composite peak, PG models assume that the peak height is the sum of the allelic component and the stutter component. In this work we examine the assumption that the heights of overlapping alleles from a minor contributor and stutter peaks from a major contributor are additive. Any peak below the analytical threshold is considered unobserved; hence, in any dataset and particularly in low-template DNA profiles, some or many peaks may be unobserved or missing. Using simulation and empirical data, we show that an additive model can explain the heights of overlapping alleles from a minor contributor and stutter peaks from a major contributor as long as missing data are carefully considered. We use a naive method of imputation for the missing data which appears to perform adequately in this case. If missing data are ignored then the sum of stutter and allelic peaks is expected to be an overestimate of the average height of the composite peaks, as was observed in this study.