Forensic Science International: Genetics
Volume 5, Issue 4 , Pages 281-284 , August 2011

The predictive value of the maximum likelihood estimator of the number of contributors to a DNA mixture

  • H. Haned

      Affiliations

    • Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, CNRS, UMR 5558, Laboratoire de biométrie et biologie évolutive, 69622 Villeurbanne, France
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author at.
    • ,
  • L. Pène

      Affiliations

    • Institut National de Police Scientifique, Laboratoire de Police Scientifique de Lyon, France
    • ,
  • F. Sauvage

      Affiliations

    • Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, CNRS, UMR 5558, Laboratoire de biométrie et biologie évolutive, 69622 Villeurbanne, France
    • ,
  • D. Pontier

      Affiliations

    • Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, CNRS, UMR 5558, Laboratoire de biométrie et biologie évolutive, 69622 Villeurbanne, France

Received 13 November 2009 ,Revised 22 February 2010 ,Accepted 21 April 2010.

References 

  1. Clayton T, Buckleton J. Mixtures. In:  Buckleton J,  Triggs CM,  Walsh SJ editor. Forensic DNA Evidence Interpretation. CRC Press; 2005;p. 217–274
  2. Paoletti DR, Doom TE, Krane CM, Raymer ML, Krane DE. Empirical analysis of the STR profiles resulting from conceptual mixtures. J. Forensic Sci. 2005;50:1361–1366
  3. H. Haned, L. Pène, J.R. Lobry, A.B. Dufour, D. Pontier, Estimating the number of contributors to forensic DNA mixtures: does maximum likelihood perform better than maximum allele count? J. Forensic Sci., 2011, in press.
  4. Butler JM, Schoske R, Vallone PM, Redman JW, Kline MC. Allele frequencies for 15 Autosomal STR loci on U.S. Caucasian, African American, and Hispanic populations. J. Forensic Sci. 2003;8:908–911
  5. Applied Biosystems (2001) AmpFlSTR® Identifiler™ PCR Amplification Kit User’s Manual, Foster City, CA, P/N 4323291.
  6. Budowle B, Onorato J, Callaghan TF, Manna AD, Gross AM, Guerrieri RA, et al. Mixture interpretation: Defining the relevant features for guidelines for the assessment of mixed DNA profiles in forensic casework. J. Forensic Sci. 2009;54:810–821
  7. Torres Y, Flores I, Prieto V, López-Soto M, Farfán MJ, Carracedo A, et al. DNA mixtures in forensic casework: a 4-year retrospective study. Forensic Sci. Int. 2003;134:180–186
  8. Buckleton J, Gill P. Low Copy Number. In:  Buckleton J,  Triggs CM,  Walsh SJ editor. Forensic DNA Evidence Interpretation. CRC Press; 2005;p. 275–297
  9. Buckleton JS, Curran JM, Gill P. Towards understanding the effect of uncertainty in the number of contributors to DNA stains. Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2007;1:20–28
  10. Gill P, Sparkes R, Pinchin R, Clayton T, Whitaker J, Buckleton J. Interpreting simple STR mixtures using allele peak areas. Forensic Sci. Int. 1998;91:41–53
  11. Evett IW, Gill P, Lambert J. Taking account of peak areas when interpreting mixed DNA profiles. J. Forensic Sci. 1998;43:62–69
  12. Perlin M, Szabady B. Linear mixture analysis: a mathematical approach to resolving mixed DNA samples. J. Forensic Sci. 2001;46:1372–1378
  13. Clayton T, Buckleton J. Mixtures. In:  Buckleton J,  Triggs CM,  Walsh SJ editor. Forensic DNA Evidence Interpretation. CRC Press; 2005;p. 217–274
  14. Wang T, Xue N, Douglas Birdwell J. Least-square deconvolution: a framework for interpreting short tandem repeat mixtures. J. Forensic Sci. 2006;51:1284–1297
  15. Cowell R, Lauritzen S, Mortera J. Identification and separation of DNA mixtures using peak area information. Forensic Sci. Int. 2007;166:28–34

PII: S1872-4973(10)00079-7

doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2010.04.005

Forensic Science International: Genetics
Volume 5, Issue 4 , Pages 281-284 , August 2011

Article Tools