Search

The Spanish and Portuguese-Speaking Working Group of the International Society for Forensic Genetics (GHEP-ISFG) has organized a second collaborative exercise on a simulated case of Disaster Victim Identification (DVI), with the participation of eighteen laboratories. The exercise focused on the analysis of a simulated plane crash case of medium-size resulting in 66 victims with varying degrees of fragmentation of the bodies (with commingled remains). As an additional difficulty, this second exercise included 21 related victims belonging to 6 families among the 66 missings to be identified. A total number of 228 post-mortem samples were represented with aSTR and mtDNA profiles, with a proportion of partial aSTR profiles simulating charred remains. To perform the exercise, participants were provided with aSTR and mtDNA data of 51 reference pedigrees -some of which deficient-including 128 donors for identification purposes. The exercise consisted firstly in the comparison of the post-mortem genetic profiles in order to re-associate fragmented remains to the same individual and secondly in the identification of the re-associated remains by comparing aSTR and mtDNA profiles with reference pedigrees using pre-established thresholds to report a positive identification. Regarding the results of the post-mortem samples re-associations, only a small number of discrepancies among participants were detected, all of which were from just a few labs. However, in the identification process by kinship analysis with family references, there were more discrepancies in comparison to the correct results. The identification results of single victims yielded fewer problems than the identification of multiple related victims within the same family groups. Several reasons for the discrepant results were detected: a) the identity/non-identity hypotheses were sometimes wrongly expressed in the likelihood ratio calculations, b) some laboratories failed to use all family references to report the DNA match, c) In families with several related victims, some laboratories firstly identified some victims and then unnecessarily used their genetic information to identify the remaining victims within the family, d) some laboratories did not correctly use "prior odds" values for the Bayesian treatment of the episode for both post-mortem/post-mortem re-associations as well as the ante-mortem/post-mortem comparisons to evaluate the probability of identity. For some of the above reasons, certain laboratories failed to identify some victims. This simulated "DNA-led" identification exercise may help forensic genetic laboratories to gain experience and expertize for DVI or MPI in using genetic data and comparing their own results with the ones in this collaborative exercise., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

One of the main goals of the Spanish and Portuguese-Speaking Group of the International Society for Forensic Genetics (GHEP-ISFG) is to promote and contribute to the development and dissemination of scientific knowledge in the field of forensic genetics. Due to this fact, GHEP-ISFG holds different working commissions that are set up to develop activities in scientific aspects of general interest. One of them, the Mixture Commission of GHEP-ISFG, has organized annually, since 2009, a collaborative exercise on analysis and interpretation of autosomal short tandem repeat (STR) mixture profiles. Until now, six exercises have been organized. At the present edition (GHEP-MIX06), with 25 participant laboratories, the exercise main aim was to assess mixture profiles results by issuing a report, from the proposal of a complex mock case. One of the conclusions obtained from this exercise is the increasing tendency of participating laboratories to validate DNA mixture profiles analysis following international recommendations. However, the results have shown some differences among them regarding the edition and also the interpretation of mixture profiles. Besides, although the last revision of ISO/IEC 17025:2017 gives indications of how results should be reported, not all laboratories strictly follow their recommendations. Regarding the statistical aspect, all those laboratories that have performed statistical evaluation of the data have employed the likelihood ratio (LR) as a parameter to evaluate the statistical compatibility. However, LR values obtained show a wide range of variation. This fact could not be attributed to the software employed, since the vast majority of laboratories that performed LR calculation employed the same software (LRmixStudio). Thus, the final allelic composition of the edited mixture profile and the parameters employed in the software could explain this data dispersion. This highlights the need, for each laboratory, to define through internal validations its criteria for editing and interpreting mixtures, and to continuous train in software handling., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Communicating and interpreting genetic evidence in the administration of justice is currently a matter of great concern, due to the theoretical and technical complexity of the evaluative reporting and large difference in expertise between forensic experts and law professionals. A large number of initiatives have been taken trying to bridge this gap, contributing to the education of both parties. Results however have not been very encouraging, as most of these initiatives try to cope globally with the problem, addressing simultaneously theoretical and technical approaches which are in a quite heterogeneous state of development and validation. In consequence, the extension and complexity of the resulting documents disheartens their study by professionals (both jurists and geneticists) and makes a consensus very hard to reach even among the genetic experts' community. Here we propose a 'back-to-basics', example-driven approach, in which a model report for the two most common situations faced by forensic laboratories is presented. We do hope that this strategy will provide a solid basis for a stepwise generalisation., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Since 1992, the Spanish and Portuguese-Speaking Working Group of the ISFG (GHEP-ISFG) has been organizing annual Intercomparison Exercises (IEs) coordinated by the Quality Service at the National Institute of Toxicology and Forensic Sciences (INTCF) from Madrid, aiming to provide proficiency tests for forensic DNA laboratories. Each annual exercise comprises a Basic (recently accredited under ISO/IEC 17043: 2010) and an Advanced Level, both including a kinship and a forensic module. Here, we show the results for both autosomal and sex-chromosomal STRs, and for mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in two samples included in the forensic modules, namely a mixture 2:1 (v/v) saliva/blood (M4) and a mixture 4:1 (v/v) saliva/semen (M8) out of the five items provided in the 2014 GHEP-ISFG IE. Discrepancies, other than typos or nomenclature errors (over the total allele calls), represented 6.5% (M4) and 4.7% (M8) for autosomal STRs, 15.4% (M4) and 7.8% (M8) for X-STRs, and 1.2% (M4) and 0.0% (M8) for Y-STRs. Drop-out and drop-in alleles were the main cause of errors, with laboratories using different criteria regarding inclusion of minor peaks and stutter bands. Commonly used commercial kits yielded different results for a micro-variant detected at locus D12S391. In addition, the analysis of electropherograms revealed that the proportions of the contributors detected in the mixtures varied among the participants. In regards to mtDNA analysis, besides important discrepancies in reporting heteroplasmies, there was no agreement for the results of sample M4. Thus, while some laboratories documented a single control region haplotype, a few reported unexpected profiles (suggesting contamination problems). For M8, most laboratories detected only the haplotype corresponding to the saliva. Although the GHEP-ISFG has already a large experience in IEs, the present multi-centric study revealed challenges that still exist related to DNA mixtures interpretation. Overall, the results emphasize the need for further research and training actions in order to improve the analysis of mixtures among the forensic practitioners., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The GHEP-ISFG Working Group has recognized the importance of assisting DNA laboratories to gain expertise in handling DVI or missing persons identification (MPI) projects which involve the need for large-scale genetic profile comparisons. Eleven laboratories participated in a DNA matching exercise to identify victims from a hypothetical conflict with 193 missing persons. The post mortem database was comprised of 87 skeletal remain profiles from a secondary mass grave displaying a minimal number of 58 individuals with evidence of commingling. The reference database was represented by 286 family reference profiles with diverse pedigrees. The goal of the exercise was to correctly discover re-associations and family matches. The results of direct matching for commingled remains re-associations were correct and fully concordant among all laboratories. However, the kinship analysis for missing persons identifications showed variable results among the participants. There was a group of laboratories with correct, concordant results but nearly half of the others showed discrepant results exhibiting likelihood ratio differences of several degrees of magnitude in some cases. Three main errors were detected: (a) some laboratories did not use the complete reference family genetic data to report the match with the remains, (b) the identity and/or non-identity hypotheses were sometimes wrongly expressed in the likelihood ratio calculations, and (c) many laboratories did not properly evaluate the prior odds for the event. The results suggest that large-scale profile comparisons for DVI or MPI is a challenge for forensic genetics laboratories and the statistical treatment of DNA matching and the Bayesian framework should be better standardized among laboratories., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

One of the main objectives of the Spanish and Portuguese-Speaking Group of the International Society for Forensic Genetics (GHEP-ISFG) is to promote and contribute to the development and dissemination of scientific knowledge in the area of forensic genetics. Due to this fact, GHEP-ISFG holds different working commissions that are set up to develop activities in scientific aspects of general interest. One of them, the Mixture Commission of GHEP-ISFG, has organized annually, since 2009, a collaborative exercise on analysis and interpretation of autosomal short tandem repeat (STR) mixture profiles. Until now, three exercises have been organized (GHEP-MIX01, GHEP-MIX02 and GHEP-MIX03), with 32, 24 and 17 participant laboratories respectively. The exercise aims to give a general vision by addressing, through the proposal of mock cases, aspects related to the edition of mixture profiles and the statistical treatment. The main conclusions obtained from these exercises may be summarized as follows. Firstly, the data show an increased tendency of the laboratories toward validation of DNA mixture profiles analysis following international recommendations (ISO/IEC 17025:2005). Secondly, the majority of discrepancies are mainly encountered in stutters positions (53.4%, 96.0% and 74.9%, respectively for the three editions). On the other hand, the results submitted reveal the importance of performing duplicate analysis by using different kits in order to reduce errors as much as possible. Regarding the statistical aspect (GHEP-MIX02 and 03), all participants employed the likelihood ratio (LR) parameter to evaluate the statistical compatibility and the formulas employed were quite similar. When the hypotheses to evaluate the LR value were locked by the coordinators (GHEP-MIX02) the results revealed a minor number of discrepancies that were mainly due to clerical reasons. However, the GHEP-MIX03 exercise allowed the participants to freely come up with their own hypotheses to calculate the LR value. In this situation the laboratories reported several options to explain the mock cases proposed and therefore significant differences between the final LR values were obtained. Complete information concerning the background of the criminal case is a critical aspect in order to select the adequate hypotheses to calculate the LR value. Although this should be a task for the judicial court to decide, it is important for the expert to account for the different possibilities and scenarios, and also offer this expertise to the judge. In addition, continuing education in the analysis and interpretation of mixture DNA profiles may also be a priority for the vast majority of forensic laboratories., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The GHEP-ISFG Working Group performed a collaborative exercise to monitor the current practice of mitochondrial (mt)DNA reporting. The participating laboratories were invited to evaluate a hypothetical case example and assess the statistical significance of a match between the haplotypes of a case (hair) sample and a suspect. A total of 31 forensic laboratories participated of which all but one used the EMPOP database. Nevertheless, we observed a tenfold range of reported LR values (32-333.4), which was mainly due to the selection of different reference datasets in EMPOP but also due to different applied formulae. The results suggest the need for more standardization as well as additional research to harmonize the reporting of mtDNA evidence., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)