posted on 2019-12-18, 03:29authored byJohn S. Buckleton, Jo-Anne Bright, Kevin Cheng, Bruce Budowle, Michael D. Coble
<p>MIX13 was an interlaboratory exercise
directed by NIST in 2013. The goal of the exercise was to evaluate the general
state of interpretation methods in use at the time across the forensic
community within the US and Canada and to measure the consistency in mixture
interpretation. The findings were that there was a large variation in analysts’
interpretations between and within laboratories.</p>
<p><br></p><p>Within this work, we sought to evaluate the
same mock mixture cases analyzed in MIX13 but with a more current view of the
state-of-the-science. Each of the five cases were analyzed using the
Identifiler™ multiplex and interpreted with the combined probability of
inclusion, CPI, and four different modern probabilistic genotyping systems.
Cases 1–4 can be interpreted without difficulty by any of the four PG systems
examined. Cases 1 and 4 could also be interpreted successfully with the CPI by
assuming two donors.</p>
<p><br></p><p>Cases 2 and 3 cannot be interpreted
successfully with the CPI because of potential of allele dropout. Case 3
demonstrated the need to consider relevant background information before
interpretation of the profile. This case does not show that there is some
barrier to interpretation caused by relatedness beyond the increased allelic
overlap that can occur. Had this profile been of better template it might have
been interpreted using the CPI despite the (potential) relatedness of
contributors.</p>
<p><br></p><p>Case 5 suffers from over-engineering. It is
unclear whether reference 5C, a non-donor, can be excluded by manual methods.
Inclusion of reference 5C should be termed an adventitious match not a false
inclusion. Beyond this statement this case does not contribute to the
interlaboratory study of analyst/laboratory interpretation method performance,
instead, it explores the limits of DNA analysis.</p>
<p><br></p><p>Taken collectively the analysis of these
five cases demonstrates the benefits of changing from CPI to a PG system.</p>
Funding
US National Institute of Justice - Grant No: 2017-DN-BX-0136