Forensic Science International: Genetics
Volume 3, Issue 2 , Pages 112-118 , March 2009

Validation of software for calculating the likelihood ratio for parentage and kinship

  • J. Drábek

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationTel.: +420 776 150 344; fax: +420 588 442 527.

Received 31 July 2008 ,Revised 19 September 2008 ,Accepted 17 November 2008.

References 

  1. Brenner CH. How to Solve Any Kinship Problem by Hand [Online]. 2004;pp. 1–4 http://dna-view.com/index.html
  2. Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (SWGDAM). Revised Validation Guidelines. 2003;pp. 1–6
  3. Advisory Board DNA. Quality assurance standards for forensic DNA testing laboratories. July 1998. Forensic Sci. Commun. 2000;2:1–15
  4. Barker R, Wichmann B. Guidance for accredited laboratories on the use of computers. Accredit. Qual. Assur. 2000;5:287–288
  5. Crumpler S, Cheng J, Tillman D-B, Benesch B, Sawyer D, Murray J, et al. General Principles Of Software Validation; Final Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff, version 2.0. 2002;pp. 1–47
  6. Gjertson DW, Brenner CH, Baur MP, Carracedo A, Guidet F, Luque JA, et al. ISFG: recommendations on biostatistics in paternity testing. Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2007;1:223–231
  7. Green JM. A practical guide to analytical method validation. Anal. Chem. 1996;68:A305–A309
  8. Huber L. Qualification and validation of software and computer systems in laboratories—Part 2: qualification of vendors. Accredit. Qual. Assur. 1998;3:2–5
  9. Huber L. Qualification and validation of software and computer systems in laboratories—Part 3: installation and operational qualification. Accredit. Qual. Assur. 1998;3:140–144
  10. Huber L. Qualification and validation of software and computer systems in laboratories—Part 4: evaluation and validation of existing systems. Accredit. Qual. Assur. 1998;3:317–321
  11. Hattacharya S, Kanjilal A. Code based analysis for object-oriented systems. J. Comput. Sci. Technol. 2006;21:965–972
  12. Marks DM. Testing Very Big Systems. The United States of America: McGraw-Hill; 1992;
  13. Brenner CH. A note on paternity computation in cases lacking a mother. Transfusion. 1993;33:51–54
  14. Ayres KL. Relatedness testing in subdivided populations. Forensic Sci. Int. 2000;114:107–115
  15. Huber L, Wiederoder H. Qualification and validation of software and computer systems in laboratories—Part 1: validation during development. Accredit. Qual. Assur. 1997;2:360–366
  16. Brenner C, Staub RW. In: Can DNA solve this? Poster presented at the 14th International Symposium on Human Identification. Phoenix, AZ, September 30–October 2. 2003;p. 1–2
  17. Blouin MS. DNA-based methods for pedigree reconstruction and kinship analysis in natural populations. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2003;18:503–511
  18. Kalinowski ST, Taper ML, Marshall TC. Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Mol. Ecol. 2007;16:1099–1106
  19. Cole JB. PyPedal: a computer program for pedigree analysis. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2007;57:107–113
  20. Gerber S, Chabrier P, Kremer A. FAMOZ: a software for parentage analysis using dominant, codominant and uniparentally inherited markers. Mol. Ecol. Notes. 2003;3:479–481
  21. Sefc KM, Lopes MS, Lefort F, Botta R, Roubelakis-Angelakis KA, Ibanez J, et al. Microsatellite variability in grapevine cultivars from different European regions and evaluation of assignment testing to assess the geographic origin of cultivars. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2000;100:498–505
  22. Konovalov DA, Manning C, Henshaw MT. KINGROUP: a program for pedigree relationship reconstruction and kin group assignments using genetic markers. Mol. Ecol. Notes. 2004;4:779–782
  23. Ritland K. Extensions of models for the estimation of mating systems using on independent loci. Heredity. 2002;88:221–228
  24. Rocheta M, Dionisio FM, Fonseca L, Pires AM. Paternity analysis in Excel. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 2007;88:234–238
  25. Cowell RG. FINEX: a Probabilistic expert system for forensic identification. Forensic Sci. Int. 2003;134:196–206
  26. Egeland T, Mostad PF, Mevag B, Stenersen M. Beyond traditional paternity and identification cases. Selecting the most probable pedigree. Forensic Sci. Int. 2000;110:47–59
  27. Dajda T, Jung M. LR-calculation of any kinship situation using a new graphical interface: generate two or more hypotheses, draw the family trees and assign the DNA-profiles to person symbols. ICS. 2006;1288:474–476
  28. Phillips C, Fondevila M, García-Magarinos M, Rodriguez A, Salas A, Carracedo A, et al. Resolving relationship tests that show ambiguous STR results using autosomal SNPs as supplementary markers. Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2008;2:198–204
  29. A.B. Hepler, Improving forensic identification using Bayesian networks and relatedness estimation: allowing for population substructure. Ph.D. Thesis. North Carolina State University, Department of Statistics, Raleigh, 2005.
  30. Brenner C, Morris JW. Paternity index calculations in single locus hypervariable DNA probes: validation and other studies. In: Proceedings for the International Symposium on Human Identification 1989. Promega Corp; 1990;p. 21–53
  31. Berent J. [DNAStat, version 1.2—a software package for processing genetic profile databases and biostatistical calculations]. Arch. Med. Sadowej Kryminol. 2007;57:322–325
  32. Brenner CH. Symbolic kinship program [published erratum appears in Genetics 147 (September (1)) (1997) following 398]. Genetics. 1997;145:535–542
  33. Fung WK. User-friendly programs for easy calculations in paternity testing and kinship determinations. Forensic Sci. Int. 2003;136:22–34
  34. Riancho JA, Zarrabeitia MT. A Windows-based software for common paternity and sibling analyses. Forensic Sci. Int. 2003;135:232–234
  35. Krawczak M, Bockel B. A genetic-factor model for the statistical-analysis of multilocus DNA fingerprints. Electrophoresis. 1992;13:10–17
  36. P. Linhart, Pravdepodobnost rodokmene a jeji pouziti v soudnim lekarstvi [Pedigree probability and its use in forensic medicine]. Bc. Thesis. Silesian University Opava, Faculty of Philosophy and Science, Institute of Informatics, 2001.
  37. C. Brenner, Mutations in Paternity [Online], 2000, http://dna-view.com/mudisc.htm.
  38. Dawid AP, Mortera J, Pascali VL. Non-fatherhood or mutation? A probabilistic approach to parental exclusion in paternity testing. Forensic Sci. Int. 2001;124:55–61
  39. Dawid AP, Mortera J, Pascali VL, van Boxel D. Probabilistic expert systems for forensic inference from genetic markers. Scand. J. Stat. 2002;29:577–595

PII: S1872-4973(08)00182-8

doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2008.11.005

Forensic Science International: Genetics
Volume 3, Issue 2 , Pages 112-118 , March 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution