- •This study evaluated maximum allele count of mixtures with expanded U.S. core loci.
- •There was no significant improvement as compared to previous U.S. core loci panel.
- •Maximum allele count was accurate for two person male mixtures based on 3 Y-STRs.
- •The maximum allele count method is not reliable beyond three person mixtures.
DNA mixtures are more frequently encountered in casework due to increased kit sensitivity, protocols with increased cycle number, and requests for low copy number DNA samples to be tested. Generally, the first step in mixture interpretation is determining the number of contributors, with the most common approach of maximum allele count. Although there are previous studies regarding the accuracy of this approach, none have evaluated the accuracy with the newly expanded U.S. core STR loci. In this work, 4,976,355 theoretical mixture combinations were generated with the PowerPlex® Fusion 6C system which includes 23 autosomal STR loci and three Y-STR loci. The number of contributors could be correctly assumed for 100% two-person and 99.99% three-person mixtures, whereas, four-, five-, and six-person mixtures were correctly assumed in 89.7%, 57.3%, and 7.8% of mixtures, respectively. Y-STR analysis showed the 3 Y-STR markers are only accurate for two-person male mixtures (96.7%). This work demonstrates that maximum allele count using the expanded U.S. core loci is not much improved from previous smaller panels, reiterating that this method is not as accurate beyond three contributors.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to Forensic Science International: Genetics
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- DNA mixtures in forensic casework: a 4-year retrospective study.Forensic Sci. Int. 2003; 134: 180-186
- Numbers and types of casework mixtures. DNA mixture interpretation: principles and practice in component deconvolution and statistical analysis.in: Washington, D.CAAFS Annual Meeting Workshop. 16. 2008 (http://strbase.nist.gov/training/AAFS2008_1_CaseworkSurvey.pdf (Accessed 6 November 2017))
- SWGDAM Interpretation Guidelines for Autosomal STR Typing by Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories.2010 (http://www.forensicdna.com/assets/swgdam_2010.pdf (Accessed 6 November 2017))
- Estimating the number of contributors to forensic DNA mixtures: does maximum likelihood perform better than maximum allele count.J. Forensic Sci. 2011; 56: 23-28
- Empirical analysis of the STR profiles resulting from conceptual mixtures.J. Forensic Sci. 2005; 50: 1361-1366
- A comparison of statistical models for the analysis of complex forensic DNA profiles.Sci. Justice. 2014; 54: 66-70
- Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods. President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.2016 (https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf (Accessed 6 November 2017))
- Validating TrueAllele DNA mixture interpretation.J. Forensic Sci. 2011; 56: 1430-1447
- Developmental validation of STRmix: expert software for the interpretation of forensic DNA profiles.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2016; 23: 226-239
- Lab Retriever: a software tool for calculating likelihood ratios incorporating a probability of drop-out for forensic DNA profiles.BMC Bioinf. 2015; 16: 1-10
- Forensim: an open-source initiative for the evaluation of statistical methods in forensic genetics.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2011; 5: 265-268
- NOCIt: a computational method to infer the number of contributors to DNA samples analyzed by STR genotyping.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2015; 16: 172-180
- Prosecutor’s DNA Evidence Tossed from Upstate N.Y. Murder Trial. Forensic Magazine.2016 (https://www.forensicmag.com/news/2016/08/prosecutors-dna-evidence-tossed-upstate-ny-murder-trial (Accessed 6 November 2017))
- Developmental validation of the PowerPlex fusion 6C system.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2016; 21: 134-144
- Forensic Biology Section Casework Test Methods Indiana State Police.2017 (http://www.in.gov/isp/labs/files/Biology_Casework_Test_Method_Version22.pdf (Accessed 6 November 2017))
- DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: recommendations on the interpretation of mixtures.Forensic Sci. Int. 2006; 160: 90-101
- 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
- The 1000 genomes project consortium, human genomic regions with exceptionally high levels of population differentiation identified from 911 whole-genome sequences.Genome Biol. 2014; 15: R88https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2014-15-6-r88
- Developing criteria and data to determine best options for expanding the core CODIS loci.Invest. Genet. 2012; 3: 1https://doi.org/10.1186/2014-2223-3-1
- Variability of New STR Loci and Kits in US Population Groups.2017 (http://strbase.nist.gov/pub_pres/Profiles-in-DNA_Variability-of-New-STR-Loci.pdf (Accessed 6 November 2017))
- SE33 variant alleles: sequences and implications.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet Supp. 2011; 3: e502-e503
- Selection and implementation of expanded CODIS core loci in the United States.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2015; 17: 33-34
- Biology and genetics of new autosomal STR loci useful for forensic DNA analysis.Forensic Sci. Rev. 2012; 24: 15-26
- Population data on the expanded CODIS core STR loci for eleven populations of significance for forensic DNA analyses in the United States.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2016; 25: 175-181
- Investigating a common approach to DNA profile interpretation using probabilistic software.Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2015; 16: 121-131
Published online: November 20, 2017
Accepted: November 12, 2017
Received in revised form: November 6, 2017
Received: August 23, 2017
© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.