Mitochondrial DNA error prophylaxis: assessing the causes of errors in the GEP'02-03 proficiency testing trial.

We report the results of the Spanish and Portuguese working group (GEP) of the International Society for Forensic Genetics (ISFG) Collaborative Exercise 2002-2003 on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis. Six different samples were submitted to the participating laboratories: four blood stains (M1-M2-M3-M4), one mixture blood sample (M5), and two hair shaft fragments (M6). Most of the labs reported consensus results for the blood stains, slightly improving the results of previous collaborative exercises. Although hair shaft analysis is still carried out by a small number of laboratories, this analysis yielded a high rate of success. On the contrary, the analysis of the mixture blood stain (M5) yielded a lower rate of success; in spite of this, the whole results on M5 typing demonstrated the suitability of mtDNA analysis in mixture samples. We have found that edition errors are among the most common mistakes reported by the different labs. In addition, we have detected contamination events as well as other minor problems, i.e. lack of standarization in nomenclature for punctual and length heteroplasmies, and indels. In the present edition of the GEP-ISFG exercise we have paid special attention to the visual phylogenetic inspection for detecting common sequencing errors.

The 2000-2001 GEP-ISFG Collaborative Exercise on mtDNA: assessing the cause of unsuccessful mtDNA PCR amplification of hair shaft samples.

We report the results of Spanish and Portuguese working group (GEP) of International Society of Forensic Genetics (ISFG) Collaborative Exercise 2001-2002 on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis. 64 laboratories from Spain, Portugal and several Latin-American countries participated in this quality control exercise. Five samples were sent to the participating laboratories, four blood stains (M1-M4) and a sample (M5) consisting of two hair shaft fragments. M4 was non-human (Felis catus) in origin; therefore, the capacity of the labs to identify the biological source of this sample was an integral part of the exercise. Some labs detected the non-human origin of M4 by carrying out immuno-diffussion techniques using antihuman serum, whereas others identified the specific animal origin by testing the sample against a set of animal antibodies or by means of the analysis of mtDNA regions (Cyt-b, 12S, and 16S genes). The results of the other three human blood stains (M1-M3) improved in relation to the last Collaborative Exercises but those related to hairs yielded a low rate of success which clearly contrasts with previous results. As a consequence of this, some labs performed additional analysis showing that the origin of this low efficiency was not the presence of inhibitors, but the low quantity of DNA present in these specific hair samples and the degradation. As a general conclusion the results emphasize the need of external proficiency testing as part of the accreditation procedure for the labs performing mtDNA analysis in forensic casework.