Forensic Science International: Genetics
Volume 4, Issue 4 , Pages 221-227 , July 2010

A universal strategy to interpret DNA profiles that does not require a definition of low-copy-number

  • Peter Gill

      Affiliations

    • University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
    • Institute of Legal Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author at: University of Strathclyde, Centre for Forensic Science, Department of Pure and Applied Chemistry, Royal College Building, Glasgow G1 1XW, UK.
    • ,
  • John Buckleton

      Affiliations

    • ESR, Auckland, New Zealand

Received 31 July 2009 ,Revised 11 September 2009 ,Accepted 15 September 2009.

References 

  1. Jeffreys AJ, Wilson V, Thein SL. Individual-specific ‘fingerprints’ of human DNA. Nature. 1985;316:76–79
  2. Budowle B, Eisenberg AJ, van Daal A. Validity of low copy number typing and applications to forensic science. Croatian Medical Journal. 2009;50:207–217
  3. Buckleton JS, Triggs CM, Walsh SJ. DNA Evidence. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press; 2004;
  4. Caragine T, et al. Validation of testing and interpretation protocols for low template DNA samples using AmpFlSTR® Identifiler®. Croatian Medical Journal. 2009;50:250–267
  5. Forster L, Thomson J, Kutranov S. Direct comparison of post-28-cycle PCR purification and modified capillary electrophoresis methods with the 34-cycle ‘low copy number’ (LCN) method for analysis of trace forensic DNA samples. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2008;2(4):318–328
  6. S. Petricevic, et al., Low Copy Number DNA profiling a valid forensic technique? Forensic Science International: Genetics, in draft.
  7. J.-A. Bright, J. Turkington, J.S. Buckleton, Examination of the variability in mixed DNA profile parameters for the Identifiler™ multiplex. Forensic Science International: Genetics, (in press).
  8. Whitaker JP, Cotton EA, Gill P. A comparison of the characteristics of profiles produced with the AMPFlSTR®SGM Plus™ multiplex system for both standard and low copy number (LCN) STR DNA analysis. Forensic Science International. 2001;123:215–223
  9. Buckleton J. Validation issues around DNA typing of low level DNA. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2009;3(4):225–260
  10. Buckleton JS, Curran JM, Gill P. Towards understanding the effect of uncertainty in the number of contributors to DNA stains. FSI Genetics. 2007;1(1):20–28
  11. Buckleton J, Curran J, Walsh S. How reliable is the sub-population model in DNA testimony?. Forensic Science International. 2006;157(1–2):144–148
  12. Gill PD, et al. A comparison of adjustment methods to test the robustness of an STR DNA database comprised of 24 European populations. Forensic Science International. 2003;131:184–196
  13. Curran JM, Buckleton JS, Triggs CM. What is the magnitude of the subpopulation effect?. Forensic Science International. 2003;135(1):1–8
  14. Harbison SA, Buckleton JS. Applications and extensions of subpopulation theory: a caseworkers guide. Science & Justice. 1998;38:249–254
  15. B. Caddy, G. Taylor, A. Linacre, A review of the science of low template DNA analysis. 2008. Available from: http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and-publications/publication/operational-policing/Review_of_Low_Template_DNA_1.pdf?view=Binary.
  16. T.F.S. Regulator, Response to Professor Brian Caddy's Review of the Science of Low Template DNA Analysis. 2008.Available from: http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and-publications/publication/operational-policing/Review_of_Low_Template_DNA_1.pdf?view=Binary.
  17. Gill P, et al. National recommendations of the Technical UK DNA working group on mixture interpretation for the NDNAD and for court going purposes. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2008;2(1):76–82
  18. D.J. Balding, J.S. Buckleton, Interpreting low template DNA profiles. Forensic Science International: Genetics, in press.
  19. Gill P, et al. An investigation of the rigor of interpretation rules for STR's derived from less that 100pg of DNA. Forensic Science International. 2000;112(1):17–40
  20. Gill P, Kirkham A, Curran J. LoComatioN: A software tool for the analysis of low copy number DNA profiles. Forensic Science International. 2007;166(2–3):128–138
  21. Curran JM, Gill P, Bill MR. Interpretation of repeat measurement DNA evidence allowing for multiple contributors and population substructure. Forensic Science International. 2005;160:47–55
  22. Taberlet P, et al. Reliable genotyping of samples with very low DNA quantities using PCR. Nucleic Acids Research. 1996;24(16):3189–3194
  23. Gill P, et al. Interpretation of complex DNA profiles using empirical models and a method to measure their robustness. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2008;2(2):91–103
  24. Gill P, Puch-Solis R, Curran J. The low-template DNA (stochastic) threshold - its determination relative to risk analysis for national DNA databases. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2009;3(2):104–111
  25. Gill P, Curran J, Neumann C. Interpretation of complex DNA profiles using Tippett plots. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series. 2008;1(1):646–648
  26. Gill P, et al. DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the interpretation of mixtures. Forensic Science International. 2006;160:90–101
  27. Buckleton J, Triggs C. Dealing with allelic dropout when reporting the evidential value in DNA relatedness analysis. Forensic Science International. 2006;160:134–139
  28. Buckleton J, Triggs CM. Is the 2p rule always conservative?. Forensic Science International. 2006;159:206–209
  29. Tvedebrink T, et al. Estimating the probability of allelic drop-out of STR alleles in forensic genetics. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2009;3(4):222–226
  30. Budowle B, et al. Mixture Interpretation: defining the relevant features for guidelines for the assessment of mixed DNA profiles in forensic casework. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2009;54(3):
  31. Buckleton J, Curran J. A discussion of the merits of random man not excluded and likelihood ratios. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2008;2(4):343–348
  32. C. Himmelreich, Germany's Phantom Serial Killer: A DNA Blunder, in Time. 2009: Berlin. Available from: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1888126,00.html accessed 14th July, 2009.
  33. Gill P, Kirkham A. Development of a simulation model to assess the impact of contamination in casework using STRs. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2004;49:485–491
  34. Stoney DA. Relaxation of the assumption of relevance and an application to one-trace and two-trace problems. Journal of the Forensic Science Society. 1994;34:17–21
  35. Triggs CM, Buckleton J. The two trace transfer problem revisited. Science and Justice. 2003;43(3):127–134
  36. Cook R, et al. A hierarchy of propositions: Deciding which level to address in casework. Science and Justice. 1998;38(4):231–240
  37. Cook R, et al. A model for case assessment and interpretation. Science and Justice. 1998;38(3):151–156
  38. Evett IW. Towards a uniform framework for reporting opinions in forensic science casework. Science and Justice. 1998;38(3):198–202
  39. Evett IW, Jackson G, Lambert JA. More on the hierarchy of propositions: exploring the distinction between explanations and propositions. Science & Justice. 2000;40(1):3–10
  40. Evett IW, et al. The impact of the principles of evidence interpretation on the structure and content of statements. Science and Justice. 2000;40(4):233–239
  41. Evett IW, et al. Interpreting small quantities of DNA: the hierarchy of propositions and the use of Bayesian networks. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2002;47(3):520–530
  42. Gill P. Low copy number DNA profiling. Croatian Medical Journal. 2001;42:229–232
  43. Gill P. Role of short tandem repeat DNA in forensic casework in the UK - past, present and future perspectives. BioTechniques. 2002;32(2):366–385
  44. Taroni F, et al. A general approach to Bayesian networks for the interpretation of evidence. Forensic Science International. 2004;139:5–16
  45. Aitken CGG, Taroni F. Statistics and the evaluation of evidence for forensic scientists. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.; 2004;
  46. Aitken CGG, Taroni F, Garbolino P. A graphical model for the evaluation of cross-transfer evidence in DNA profiles. Theoretical Population Biology. 2003;63:179–190
  47. Garbolino P, Taroni F. Evaluation of scientific evidence using Bayesian networks. Forensic Science International. 2002;125:149–155
  48. Lord_Justice_Phillips, Mr_Justice_Jowitt, and Mr_Justice_Keene., R. v. Adams and R. v. Doheny, 1996.
  49. Court_of_Appeal, Regina v Doheny and Adams, Royal Courts of Justice – The Strand – London WC2, 1996.

PII: S1872-4973(09)00149-5

doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2009.09.008

Forensic Science International: Genetics
Volume 4, Issue 4 , Pages 221-227 , July 2010

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution