Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2019 May;40:1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2019.01.006. Epub 2019 Jan 15.

STRmix™ collaborative exercise on DNA mixture interpretation.

Author information

1
Institute of Environmental Science and Research Limited, Private Bag 92021, Auckland, 1142 New Zealand. Electronic address: jo.bright@esr.cri.nz.
2
Institute of Environmental Science and Research Limited, Private Bag 92021, Auckland, 1142 New Zealand.
3
DNA Support Unit, Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory, 2501 Investigation Parkway, Quantico, VA 22135, USA.
4
Center for Advanced Molecular Diagnostics, Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
5
Center for Human Identification, Department of Microbiology, Immunology, and Genetics, University of North Texas Health Science Center, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd., Fort Worth, TX, 76107, USA.
6
General Department of Forensic Sciences and Criminology, Dubai Police G.H.Q., Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
7
Cellmark Forensic Services, UK.
8
Massachusetts State Police Crime Laboratory, USA.
9
Scottsdale Police Department Crime Laboratory, USA.
10
Wyoming State Crime Laboratory, USA.
11
CT DESPP Division of Scientific Services, USA.
12
University Center of Legal Medicine, Lausanne-Geneva (CURML), Switzerland.
13
School of Criminal Justice, University of Lausanne, Switzerland.
14
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, USA.
15
Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services, Australia.
16
Midwest Regional Forensic Laboratory, USA.
17
Helix Analytical, Inc, USA.
18
Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences, USA.
19
Victoria Police Forensic Science Laboratory, Australia.
20
San Bernardino County Sheriff's Dept., USA.
21
Laboratoire de sciences judiciaires et de médecine légale, Montréal, Canada.
22
DuPage County Sheriff's Crime Laboratory, IL, USA.
23
Orange County Crime Laboratory, USA.
24
Kansas City Police Crime Laboratory, USA.
25
Indiana State Police Laboratory, USA.
26
Oregon State Police Portland Metro Crime Laboratory, USA.
27
Forensic Analytical Crime Laboratory, USA.
28
University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
29
Westchester County Department of Labs and Research, USA.
30
Government Laboratory, Hong Kong.
31
New York City Office of Chief Medical Examiner (OCME), USA.
32
NBI, Forensic laboratory Finland, Finland.
33
Forensic Science Ireland, Ireland.
34
Scottish Police Authority, UK.
35
Key Forensic Services, UK.
36
Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, USA.
37
Texas Department of Public Safety, USA.
38
Signature Science, LLC Austin, TX, USA.
39
San Francisco Police Department Crime Lab, USA.
40
Washington State Patrol, USA.
41
Mesa Police Department-Forensic Services, USA.
42
US Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory, USA.
43
PathWest, Australia.
44
California Department of Justice, USA.
45
Idaho State Police Forensic Services, USA.
46
Florida Department of Law Enforcement, USA.
47
Forensic Science SA, GPO Box 2790, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia; School of Biological Sciences, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia.
48
Institute of Environmental Science and Research Limited, Private Bag 92021, Auckland, 1142 New Zealand; University of Auckland, Department of Statistics, Auckland, New Zealand.

Abstract

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): 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.

KEYWORDS:

Forensic DNA interpretation; Inter-laboratory study; Intra-laboratory study; Probabilistic genotyping; STRmix

PMID:
30665115
DOI:
10.1016/j.fsigen.2019.01.006
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center