Forensic Science International: Genetics
Volume 5, Issue 5 , Pages 376-380 , November 2011

Analysis and interpretation of mixed profiles generated by 34 cycle SGM Plus® amplification

Received 12 March 2010 ,Revised 8 June 2010 ,Accepted 19 July 2010.

References 

  1. Budowle B, Hobson DL, Smerick JB, Smith JAL. Low copy number—consideration and caution. In: Twelfth International Symposium on Human Identification 2001. Promega Corporation, Madison, Wisconsin. 2001;http://www.promega.com/geneticidproc/ussymp12proc/contents/budowle.pdf
  2. Caragine T, Mikulasovich R, Tamariz J, Bajda E, Sebestyen J, Baum H, et al. Validation of testing and interpretation protocols for low template DNA samples using AmpFlSTR Identifiler. Croat. Med. J. 2009;50:250–267
  3. Forster L, Thompson 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 Sci. Int.: Genet. 2008;2:318–328
  4. Leclair B, Sgeuglia JB, Wojtowicz PC, Juston AC, Fregeau CJ, Fourney RM. STR DNA typing: increased sensitivity and efficient sample consumption using reduced PCR reaction volumes. J. Forensic Sci. 2003;48(5):1001–1013
  5. Gill P, Whitaker J, Flaxman C, Brown N, Buckleton J. An investigation of the rigor of interpretation rules for STRs derived from less than 100pg of DNA. Forensic Sci. Int. 2000;112(1):17–40
  6. Gill P, Rowlands D, Tully G, Bastisch I, Staples T, Scott P. Manufacturer contamination of disposable plastic-ware and other reagents—an agreed position statement by ENFSI, SWGDAM and BSAG. Forensic Sci. Int.: Genet. 2010;4(4):269–270
  7. 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 Sci. Int. 2001;123:215–223
  8. Gill P, Buckleton J. A universal strategy to interpret DNA profiles that does not require a definition of low-copy-number. Forensic Sci. Int.: Genet. 2010;4(4):221–227
  9. Clayton TM, Whitaker JP, Sparkes R, Gill P. Analysis and interpretation of mixed forensic stains using DNA STR profiling. Forensic Sci. Int. 1998;91:55–70
  10. Gill P, Sparkes R, Pinchin R, Clayton TM, Whitaker JP, Buckleton J. Interpreting simple STR mixtures using allele peak areas. Forensic Sci. Int. 1998;91:41–53
  11. Budowle B, Onorato AJ, 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;54:801–810
  12. Gibb AJ, Huell AL, Simmons MC, Brown RM. Characterisation of forward stutter in the AmpFlSTR SGM Plus PCR. Sci. Just. 2009;49(1):24–31
  13. Barbisin M, Fang R, O'Shea CE, Brzoska PM, Calandro LM, Furtado MR, et al. Validation of a multiplexed system for quantification of human DNA and human male DNA and detection of PCR inhibitors in biological samples. In: Proceedings of the 18th Promega Genetic Identity Conference. 2007;http://www.promega.com/GENETICIDPROC/ussymp18proc/oralpresentations/Barbisin.pdf
  14. Clayton T, Pope S, Whitaker J, Puch-Solis R, Lowe J. More for the same? Enhancing the investigative potential of forensic DNA databases. Forensic Sci. Int.: Genet. 2009;(Supplement Series 2:1):458–459

PII: S1872-4973(10)00114-6

doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2010.07.003

Forensic Science International: Genetics
Volume 5, Issue 5 , Pages 376-380 , November 2011

Article Tools