STRmix™ collaborative exercise on DNA mixture interpretation
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
STRmix™ collaborative exercise on DNA mixture interpretation. / Bright, Jo Anne; Cheng, Kevin; Kerr, Zane; McGovern, Catherine; Kelly, Hannah; Moretti, Tamyra R.; Smith, Michael A.; Bieber, Frederick R.; Budowle, Bruce; Coble, Michael D.; Alghafri, Rashed; Allen, Paul Stafford; Barber, Amy; Beamer, Vickie; Buettner, Christina; Russell, Melanie; Gehrig, Christian; Hicks, Tacha; Charak, Jessica; Cheong-Wing, Kate; Ciecko, Anne; Davis, Christie T.; Donley, Michael; Pedersen, Natalie; Gartside, Bill; Granger, Dominic; Greer-Ritzheimer, Mary Margaret; Reisinger, Erick; Kennedy, Jarrah; Grammer, Erin; Kaplan, Marla; Hansen, David; Larsen, Hans J.; Laureano, Alanna; Li, Christina; Lien, Eugene; Lindberg, Emilia; Kelly, Ciara; Mallinder, Ben; Malsom, Simon; Yacovone-Margetts, Alyse; McWhorter, Andrew; Prajapati, Sapana M.; Powell, Tamar; Shutler, Gary; Stevenson, Kate; Stonehouse, April R.; Smith, Lindsey; Murakami, Julie; Halsing, Eric; Wright, Darren; Clark, Leigh; Taylor, Duncan A.; Buckleton, John.
In: Forensic Science International: Genetics, Vol. 40, 05.2019, p. 1-8.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - STRmix™ collaborative exercise on DNA mixture interpretation
AU - Bright, Jo Anne
AU - Cheng, Kevin
AU - Kerr, Zane
AU - McGovern, Catherine
AU - Kelly, Hannah
AU - Moretti, Tamyra R.
AU - Smith, Michael A.
AU - Bieber, Frederick R.
AU - Budowle, Bruce
AU - Coble, Michael D.
AU - Alghafri, Rashed
AU - Allen, Paul Stafford
AU - Barber, Amy
AU - Beamer, Vickie
AU - Buettner, Christina
AU - Russell, Melanie
AU - Gehrig, Christian
AU - Hicks, Tacha
AU - Charak, Jessica
AU - Cheong-Wing, Kate
AU - Ciecko, Anne
AU - Davis, Christie T.
AU - Donley, Michael
AU - Pedersen, Natalie
AU - Gartside, Bill
AU - Granger, Dominic
AU - Greer-Ritzheimer, Mary Margaret
AU - Reisinger, Erick
AU - Kennedy, Jarrah
AU - Grammer, Erin
AU - Kaplan, Marla
AU - Hansen, David
AU - Larsen, Hans J.
AU - Laureano, Alanna
AU - Li, Christina
AU - Lien, Eugene
AU - Lindberg, Emilia
AU - Kelly, Ciara
AU - Mallinder, Ben
AU - Malsom, Simon
AU - Yacovone-Margetts, Alyse
AU - McWhorter, Andrew
AU - Prajapati, Sapana M.
AU - Powell, Tamar
AU - Shutler, Gary
AU - Stevenson, Kate
AU - Stonehouse, April R.
AU - Smith, Lindsey
AU - Murakami, Julie
AU - Halsing, Eric
AU - Wright, Darren
AU - Clark, Leigh
AU - Taylor, Duncan A.
AU - Buckleton, John
PY - 2019/5
Y1 - 2019/5
N2 - An intra and inter-laboratory study using the probabilistic genotyping (PG) software STRmix™ is reported. Two complex mixtures from the PROVEDIt set, analysed on an Applied Biosystems™ 3500 Series Genetic Analyzer, were selected. 174 participants responded. For Sample 1 (low template, in the order of 200 rfu for major contributors) five participants described the comparison as inconclusive with respect to the POI or excluded him. Where LRs were assigned, the point estimates ranging from 2 × 104 to 8 × 106. For Sample 2 (in the order of 2000 rfu for major contributors), LRs ranged from 2 × 1028 to 2 × 1029. Where LRs were calculated, the differences between participants can be attributed to (from largest to smallest impact): • varying number of contributors (NoC), • the exclusion of some loci within the interpretation, • differences in local CE data analysis methods leading to variation in the peaks present and their heights in the input files used, • and run-to-run variation due to the random sampling inherent to all MCMC-based methods. This study demonstrates a high level of repeatability and reproducibility among the participants. For those results that differed from the mode, the differences in LR were almost always minor or conservative.
AB - An intra and inter-laboratory study using the probabilistic genotyping (PG) software STRmix™ is reported. Two complex mixtures from the PROVEDIt set, analysed on an Applied Biosystems™ 3500 Series Genetic Analyzer, were selected. 174 participants responded. For Sample 1 (low template, in the order of 200 rfu for major contributors) five participants described the comparison as inconclusive with respect to the POI or excluded him. Where LRs were assigned, the point estimates ranging from 2 × 104 to 8 × 106. For Sample 2 (in the order of 2000 rfu for major contributors), LRs ranged from 2 × 1028 to 2 × 1029. Where LRs were calculated, the differences between participants can be attributed to (from largest to smallest impact): • varying number of contributors (NoC), • the exclusion of some loci within the interpretation, • differences in local CE data analysis methods leading to variation in the peaks present and their heights in the input files used, • and run-to-run variation due to the random sampling inherent to all MCMC-based methods. This study demonstrates a high level of repeatability and reproducibility among the participants. For those results that differed from the mode, the differences in LR were almost always minor or conservative.
KW - Forensic DNA interpretation
KW - Inter-laboratory study
KW - Intra-laboratory study
KW - Probabilistic genotyping
KW - STRmix
U2 - 10.1016/j.fsigen.2019.01.006
DO - 10.1016/j.fsigen.2019.01.006
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 30665115
AN - SCOPUS:85060079691
VL - 40
SP - 1
EP - 8
JO - Forensic Science International: Genetics
JF - Forensic Science International: Genetics
SN - 1872-4973
ER -
ID: 212849229