A tale of two PG systems: A comparison of the two most widely used continuous probabilistic genotyping systems in the United States.

The development of probabilistic genotyping (PG) systems to quantitatively analyze DNA mixture samples has been transformative in forensic science. TrueAllele® Casework (TA) and STRmix™ (STRmix) are the two most widely used PG systems in the United States. The two systems were challenged with 48 two-, three-, and four-person mock casework samples, for a total of 152 likelihood ratio (LR) comparisons. TA and STRmix converged on the same result (supportive, non-supportive, or inconclusive) for ~91% of contributor-specific comparisons. Where moderate or substantial differences in log(LR) values were observed, 9% affected the conclusion of the reference association to the mixture. The PG systems exhibited high correlations for estimated contributor-specific template quantities (~92%) and log(LR)s produced (>88%). When the log(LR)s for only low-template contributors (<100 pg) were compared, the R2 value dropped to ~68% and the difference became statistically significant. Of the 14 contributor comparisons where the conclusion differed, two were contradictory (supportive vs. non-supportive) and 12 were either inconclusive versus non-supportive or inconclusive versus supportive. The differing results were likely due to dissimilarities in the mixture input file as STRmix uses a lab-defined analytical threshold (AT) and TA models to 10 RFUs for each electropherogram. When 7 of the 14 mixtures were reanalyzed by STRmix using a 10 RFU AT, the log(LR)s for the low-template contributors became more similar to TAs. This study shows that while both systems may produce accurate and calibrated LRs, their results can deviate, especially for low-template, degraded contributors, and the deviation is generally predictable.

Establishing the Limits of TrueAllele® Casework: A Validation Study.

The limits of the expert system, TrueAllele® Casework (TA), were explored using challenging mock casework profiles that included 17 single-source and 18 two-, 15 three- and 7 four-person DNA mixtures. The sensitivity (ability to detect a minor contributor) of the TA analysis process was examined by challenging the system with mixture DNA samples that exhibited allelic and locus dropout and other stochastic effects. The specificity (ability to exclude nondonors) was rigorously tested by interrogating TA derived genotypes with 100 nondonor profiles. The accuracy with which TA estimated mixture weights of contributors to the two-person mixtures was examined. Finally, first-degree relatives of donors were used to assess the ability of the system to exclude close relatives. TA demonstrated great accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. TA correctly assigned mixture weights and excluded nearly all first-degree relatives. This study demonstrates the analysis power of the TrueAllele® Casework system.

TrueAllele casework on Virginia DNA mixture evidence: computer and manual interpretation in 72 reported criminal cases.

Mixtures are a commonly encountered form of biological evidence that contain DNA from two or more contributors. Laboratory analysis of mixtures produces data signals that usually cannot be separated into distinct contributor genotypes. Computer modeling can resolve the genotypes up to probability, reflecting the uncertainty inherent in the data. Human analysts address the problem by simplifying the quantitative data in a threshold process that discards considerable identification information. Elevated stochastic threshold levels potentially discard more information. This study examines three different mixture interpretation methods. In 72 criminal cases, 111 genotype comparisons were made between 92 mixture items and relevant reference samples. TrueAllele computer modeling was done on all the evidence samples, and documented in DNA match reports that were provided as evidence for each case. Threshold-based Combined Probability of Inclusion (CPI) and stochastically modified CPI (mCPI) analyses were performed as well. TrueAllele's identification information in 101 positive matches was used to assess the reliability of its modeling approach. Comparison was made with 81 CPI and 53 mCPI DNA match statistics that were manually derived from the same data. There were statistically significant differences between the DNA interpretation methods. TrueAllele gave an average match statistic of 113 billion, CPI averaged 6.68 million, and mCPI averaged 140. The computer was highly specific, with a false positive rate under 0.005%. The modeling approach was precise, having a factor of two within-group standard deviation. TrueAllele accuracy was indicated by having uniformly distributed match statistics over the data set. The computer could make genotype comparisons that were impossible or impractical using manual methods. TrueAllele computer interpretation of DNA mixture evidence is sensitive, specific, precise, accurate and more informative than manual interpretation alternatives. It can determine DNA match statistics when threshold-based methods cannot. Improved forensic science computation can affect criminal cases by providing reliable scientific evidence.