Back to Search Start Over

Analysis of uni and bi-parental markers in mixture samples: Lessons from the 22nd GHEP-ISFG Intercomparison Exercise.

Authors :
Toscanini U
Gusmão L
Álava Narváez MC
Álvarez JC
Baldassarri L
Barbaro A
Berardi G
Betancor Hernández E
Camargo M
Carreras-Carbonell J
Castro J
Costa SC
Coufalova P
Domínguez V
Fagundes de Carvalho E
Ferreira STG
Furfuro S
García O
Goios A
González R
de la Vega AG
Gorostiza A
Hernández A
Jiménez Moreno S
Lareu MV
León Almagro A
Marino M
Martínez G
Miozzo MC
Modesti NM
Onofri V
Pagano S
Pardo Arias B
Pedrosa S
Penacino GA
Pontes ML
Porto MJ
Puente-Prieto J
Pérez RR
Ribeiro T
Rodríguez Cardozo B
Rodríguez Lesmes YM
Sala A
Santiago B
Saragoni VG
Serrano A
Streitenberger ER
Torres Morales MA
Vannelli Rey SA
Velázquez Miranda M
Whittle MR
Fernández K
Salas A
Source :
Forensic science international. Genetics [Forensic Sci Int Genet] 2016 Nov; Vol. 25, pp. 63-72. Date of Electronic Publication: 2016 Jul 19.
Publication Year :
2016

Abstract

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.<br /> (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1878-0326
Volume :
25
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
Forensic science international. Genetics
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
27500650
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2016.07.010