An inter-laboratory study of DNA-based identity, parentage and species testing in animal forensic genetics

The probative value of animal forensic genetic evidence relies on laboratory accuracy and reliability. Inter-laboratory comparisons allow laboratories to evaluate their performance on specific tests and analyses and to continue to monitor their output. The International Society for Animal Genetics (ISAG) administered animal forensic comparison tests (AFCTs) in 2016 and 2018 to assess the limitations and capabilities of laboratories offering forensic identification, parentage and species determination services. The AFCTs revealed that analyses of low DNA template concentrations (≤300 pg/µL) constitute a significant challenge that has prevented many laboratories from reporting correct identification and parentage results. Moreover, a lack of familiarity with species testing protocols, interpretation guidelines and representative databases prevented over a quarter of the participating laboratories from submitting correct species determination results. Several laboratories showed improvement in their genotyping accuracy over time. However, the use of forensically validated standards, such as a standard forensic STR kit, preferably with an allelic ladder, and stricter guidelines for STR typing, may have prevented some common issues from occurring, such as genotyping inaccuracies, missing data, elevated stutter products and loading errors. The AFCTs underscore the importance of conducting routine forensic comparison tests to allow laboratories to compare results from each other. Laboratories should keep improving their scientific and technical capabilities and continuously evaluate their personnel’s proficiency in critical techniques such as low copy number (LCN) analysis and species testing. Although this is the first time that the ISAG has conducted comparison tests for forensic testing, findings from these AFCTs may serve as the foundation for continuous improvements of the overall quality of animal forensic genetic testing. Supplemental data for this article are available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/20961790.2021.1886679