Comparison of genotyping and weight of evidence results when applying different genotyping strategies on samples from a DNA transfer experiment.

In this study, we assessed to what extent data on the subject of TPPR (transfer, persistence, prevalence, recovery) that are obtained through an older STR typing kit can be used in an activity-level evaluation for a case profiled with a more modern STR kit. Newer kits generally hold more loci and may show higher sensitivity especially when reduced reaction volumes are used, and this could increase the evidential value at the source level. On the other hand, the increased genotyping information may invoke a higher number of contributors in the weight of evidence calculations, which could affect the evidential values as well. An activity scenario well explored in earlier studies [1,2] was redone using volunteers with known DNA profiles. DNA extracts were analyzed with three different approaches, namely using the optimal DNA input for (1) an older and (2) a newer STR typing system, and (3) using a standard, volume-based input combined with replicate PCR analysis with only the newer STR kit. The genotyping results were analyzed for various aspects such as percentage detected alleles and relative peak height contribution for background and the contributors known to be involved in the activity. Next, source-level LRs were calculated and the same trends were observed with regard to inclusionary and exclusionary LRs for persons who had or had not been in direct contact with the sampled areas. We subsequently assessed the impact on the outcome of the activity-level evaluation in an exemplary case by applying the assigned probabilities to a Bayesian network. We infer that data from different STR kits can be combined in the activity-level evaluations.

Development and validation of a fast and automated DNA identification line.

The importance of DNA evidence for gaining investigative leads demands a fast workflow for forensic DNA profiling performed in large volumes. Therefore, we developed software solutions for automated DNA profile analysis, contamination check, major donor inference, DNA database (DDB) comparison and reporting of the conclusions. This represents the Fast DNA IDentification Line (FIDL) and this study describes its development, validation and implementation in criminal casework at the authors' institute. This first implementation regards single donor profiles and major contributors to mixtures. The validation included testing of the software components on their own and examination of the performance of different DDB search strategies. Furthermore, end-to-end testing was performed under three conditions: (1) testing of scenarios that can occur in DNA casework practice, (2) tests using three months of previous casework data, and (3) testing in a casework production environment in parallel to standard casework practices. The same DNA database candidates were retrieved by this automated line as by the manual workflow. The data flow was correct, results were reproducible and robust, results requiring manual analysis were correctly flagged, and reported results were as expected. Overall, we found FIDL valid for use in casework practice in our institute. The results from FIDL are automatically reported within three working days from receiving the trace sample. This includes the time needed for registration of the case, DNA extraction, quantification, polymerase chain reaction and capillary electrophoresis. FIDL itself takes less than two hours from intake of the raw CE data to reporting. Reported conclusions are one of five options: (1) candidate retrieved from DDB, (2) no candidate retrieved from DDB, (3) high evidential value with regards to reference within the case, (4) results require examination of expert, or (5) insufficient amount of DNA obtained to generate a DNA profile. In our current process, the automated report is sent within three working days and a complete report, with confirmation of the FIDL results, and signed by a reporting officer is sent at a later time. The signed report may include additional analyses regarding e.g. minor contributors. The automated report with first case results is quickly available to the police enabling them to act upon the DNA results prior to receiving the full DNA report. This line enables a uniform and efficient manner of handling large numbers of traces and cases and provides high value investigative leads in the early stages of the investigation.

An assessment of the performance of the probabilistic genotyping software EuroForMix: Trends in likelihood ratios and analysis of Type I & II errors.

Continuous probabilistic genotyping software enables the interpretation of highly complex DNA profiles that are prone to stochastic effects and/or consist of multiple contributions. The process of introducing probabilistic genotyping into an accredited forensic laboratory requires testing, validation, documentation and training. Documents that include guidelines and/or requirements have been published in order to guide forensic laboratories through this extensive process and there has been encouragements to share the results obtained from internal laboratory studies. To this end, we present the results obtained from the quantitative probabilistic genotyping system EuroForMix applied to mixed DNA profiles with known contributions mixed in known proportions, levels of allele sharing and levels of allelic drop-out. The mixtures were profiled using the PowerPlex® Fusion 6C (PPF6C) kit. Using these mixtures, 427 Hp-true tests and 408 Hd-true tests were performed. In the Hd-true tests, non-contributors were selected deliberately to a have large overlap with the alleles within the mixture and worst-case scenarios were examined in which a simulated relative of one of the true donors was considered as the person of interest under the prosecution hypothesis. The effects of selecting different EuroForMix modelling options, the use of PCR replicates, allelic drop-out, and varying the assigned number of contributors were examined. Instances of Type I and Type II errors are discussed. In addition 330 likelihood ratio results from EuroForMix are compared to the semi-continuous model LRmix Studio. Results demonstrate the performance and trends of EuroForMix when applied to PPF6C profiles.