Next Article in Journal
Forensic Expertise Based on Findings through Postmortem Mammography Imaging
Previous Article in Journal
Herbal Medicine Must Be Treated with Care—A Case Report on Aconitine
Communication

Proposed Framework for Comparison of Continuous Probabilistic Genotyping Systems amongst Different Laboratories

1
Centre for Forensic Science, School of Mathematical & Physical Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia
2
Centre for Genomics and Personalised Health, Genomics Research Centre, School of Biomedical Sciences, Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane City, QLD 4000, Australia
3
Department of Justice Studies, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA 95192, USA
4
The Forensic Institute, Glasgow G1 2LW, UK
5
School of Environment and Science, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD 4111, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Manfred Kayser
Forensic Sci. 2021, 1(1), 33-45; https://doi.org/10.3390/forensicsci1010006
Received: 31 March 2021 / Revised: 27 May 2021 / Accepted: 3 June 2021 / Published: 10 June 2021
Continuous probabilistic genotyping (PG) systems are becoming the default method for calculating likelihood ratios (LRs) for competing propositions about DNA mixtures. Calculation of the LR relies on numerical methods and simultaneous probabilistic simulations of multiple variables rather than on analytical solutions alone. Some also require modelling of individual laboratory processes that give rise to electropherogram artefacts and peak height variance. For these reasons, it has been argued that any LR produced by continuous PG is unique and cannot be compared with another. We challenge this assumption and demonstrate that there are a set of conditions defining specific DNA mixtures which can produce an aspirational LR and thereby provide a measure of reproducibility for DNA profiling systems incorporating PG. Such DNA mixtures could serve as the basis for inter-laboratory comparisons, even when different STR amplification kits are employed. We propose a procedure for an inter-laboratory comparison consistent with these conditions. View Full-Text
Keywords: forensic DNA analysis; probabilistic genotyping; likelihood ratio; DNA mixture; inter-laboratory comparison; reproducibility forensic DNA analysis; probabilistic genotyping; likelihood ratio; DNA mixture; inter-laboratory comparison; reproducibility
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

McNevin, D.; Wright, K.; Barash, M.; Gomes, S.; Jamieson, A.; Chaseling, J. Proposed Framework for Comparison of Continuous Probabilistic Genotyping Systems amongst Different Laboratories. Forensic Sci. 2021, 1, 33-45. https://doi.org/10.3390/forensicsci1010006

AMA Style

McNevin D, Wright K, Barash M, Gomes S, Jamieson A, Chaseling J. Proposed Framework for Comparison of Continuous Probabilistic Genotyping Systems amongst Different Laboratories. Forensic Sciences. 2021; 1(1):33-45. https://doi.org/10.3390/forensicsci1010006

Chicago/Turabian Style

McNevin, Dennis; Wright, Kirsty; Barash, Mark; Gomes, Sara; Jamieson, Allan; Chaseling, Janet. 2021. "Proposed Framework for Comparison of Continuous Probabilistic Genotyping Systems amongst Different Laboratories" Forensic Sci. 1, no. 1: 33-45. https://doi.org/10.3390/forensicsci1010006

Find Other Styles

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop