US20020007248A1 - Analysis of DNA samples - Google Patents

Analysis of DNA samples Download PDF

Info

Publication number
US20020007248A1
US20020007248A1 US09/834,822 US83482201A US2002007248A1 US 20020007248 A1 US20020007248 A1 US 20020007248A1 US 83482201 A US83482201 A US 83482201A US 2002007248 A1 US2002007248 A1 US 2002007248A1
Authority
US
United States
Prior art keywords
probability
individual
result
individual test
test result
Prior art date
Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
Abandoned
Application number
US09/834,822
Other languages
English (en)
Inventor
Peter Gill
Jonathon Whitaker
John Buckleton
Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.)
Forensic Science Service Ltd
Original Assignee
UK Secretary of State for the Home Department
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by UK Secretary of State for the Home Department filed Critical UK Secretary of State for the Home Department
Assigned to SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT, THE reassignment SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT, THE ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS). Assignors: BUCKLETON, JOHN, GILL, PETER, WHITAKER, JONATHON
Publication of US20020007248A1 publication Critical patent/US20020007248A1/en
Priority to US10/977,698 priority Critical patent/US20050064500A1/en
Assigned to FORENSIC SCIENCE SERVICE LTD. reassignment FORENSIC SCIENCE SERVICE LTD. ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS). Assignors: SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT, THE
Priority to US12/042,894 priority patent/US20080286782A1/en
Priority to US12/643,723 priority patent/US20100216144A1/en
Priority to US13/163,147 priority patent/US20120123687A1/en
Priority to US13/914,174 priority patent/US10007754B2/en
Abandoned legal-status Critical Current

Links

Images

Classifications

    • G—PHYSICS
    • G16—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATION FIELDS
    • G16B—BIOINFORMATICS, i.e. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR GENETIC OR PROTEIN-RELATED DATA PROCESSING IN COMPUTATIONAL MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
    • G16B30/00—ICT specially adapted for sequence analysis involving nucleotides or amino acids
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G16—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATION FIELDS
    • G16B—BIOINFORMATICS, i.e. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR GENETIC OR PROTEIN-RELATED DATA PROCESSING IN COMPUTATIONAL MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
    • G16B20/00—ICT specially adapted for functional genomics or proteomics, e.g. genotype-phenotype associations
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G16—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATION FIELDS
    • G16B—BIOINFORMATICS, i.e. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR GENETIC OR PROTEIN-RELATED DATA PROCESSING IN COMPUTATIONAL MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
    • G16B20/00—ICT specially adapted for functional genomics or proteomics, e.g. genotype-phenotype associations
    • G16B20/20—Allele or variant detection, e.g. single nucleotide polymorphism [SNP] detection

Definitions

  • This invention concerns improvements in and relating to analysis of DNA samples, particularly, but not exclusively, in relation to analysis of DNA samples formed of only a few cells.
  • the present invention has amongst its aims to provide a technique in which all information in an analysis result for a DNA sample is compared with results for reference samples with a view to determining a probability of a match between the test sample and each of the reference samples by calculating likelihood ratios.
  • the present invention has amongst its aims to provide a technique in which all of the information obtained from the analysis of the DNA sample is used in the determination of the results.
  • the present invention has amongst its aims to provide a technique in which the impact of potential spurious results can be quantified.
  • the present invention has amongst its aims a technique for validating approximations which may be made in the analysis of DNA sample.
  • the present invention has amongst its aims the provision of a system which can be operated successfully by competent but non-expert persons.
  • the present invention has amongst its aims the provision of providing a technique whereby complex samples that comprise mixtures may be analysed.
  • the reference samples may be from known individuals and/or associated with other known factors, such as locations, items or events. Each reference sample is preferably represented by one or more individual stored results. Each reference sample is preferably represented by 8 or more individual stored results. Each reference sample is preferably represented by individual stored results which provide the allele identity or allele identities for a given locus.
  • the reference samples may be stored in a database.
  • the database may be updated periodically. New reference samples may be added to the database. Additional individual results may be added to existing reference samples.
  • the test sample may be from a known individual and/or be associated with one or more other known factors, such as a location, item or event the sample was recovered from.
  • the test sample may be from one or more sources. One or more of the sources of the sample may be known or predicted.
  • the identity of the alleles at one or more of the loci of the reference sample and/or test sample may be determined by short tandem repeat based investigation.
  • the loci for which allele identity is determined may particularly be selected to include one or more of HWMVWFA31, HUMTH01, D21S11, D18S51, HUMFIBRA, D8S1179, HUMAMGXA, HUMAMGY, D3S1358, HUMVWA, D16S539, D2S1333, Amelogenin, D8S1179, D21S11, D18S51, D19S433, HUMTH01, HUMFIBRAIFGA.
  • the loci selected may particularly be each of D3S1358, HUMVWA, D16S539, D2S1338, Amelogenin, D8S1179, D21S11, D18S51, D19S433, HUMTH01, HUMEIBRA/FGA.
  • An individual test result is preferably the allele or alleles detected for that given locus and/or the apparent alleles detected when that locus is considered.
  • the individual test result may comprise 0 to 50 alleles, but more usually comprises 0 to 32 alleles.
  • the individual test result may thus include the homozygous or heterozygous alleles of the test sample's source, homozygous and/or heterozygous alleles from DNA contamination of the test sample and/or stutters of these and/or other amplification artifacts.
  • the consideration is preferably provided for between 1 and 25 loci and more preferably between 1 and 16 loci. Preferably an equivalent consideration process is provided for each locus.
  • the consideration preferably involves the determination of a likelihood ratio.
  • the likelihood ratio preferably accounts for the probability of the individual sample result arising from the individual reference result against the probability of the individual sample result are from other than the individual reference result.
  • the consideration may involve the probability of the individual test result arising given that individual reference result, including through spurious information occurrence, divided by the probability of the individual test result arising from other than the individual reference result in any way, including through spurious information occurrence.
  • the consideration may involve the probability of the individual test result arising given that individual reference result, including through spurious information occurrence, divided by the product of the probability of the individual test result arising from other than the individual reference result, including through spurious information occurrence, and the frequency of that individual stored result in a population.
  • the consideration may involve the probability of the individual test result arising that individual reference result, including through spurious information occurrence, for each individual test result, divided by the product of the probability of the individual test result arising from other than the individual reference result, including through spurious information occurrence, and the frequency of that individual reference result in a population, for each individual test result.
  • the likelihood ratio may be the probability of the individual test result arising from an individual stored result, and other than the individual stored result divided by the probability of the individual test result arising from other than the individual stored result and from other than the individual stored result.
  • the consideration may incorporate an assessment of spurious alleles (either stutters of contaminants or other artifacts), that are factored into the probability calculations.
  • the probability of observation of alleles may be calculated from the frequency of occurrence in relevant populations and used in the consideration
  • the frequency of occurrence may be derived from an Afro-Caribbean, Asian and white Caucasian population.
  • the consideration may include an adjustment to probabilities to account for inbreeding.
  • the consideration may take into account more than one route involving spurious information and/or more than one type of spurious information.
  • the probability preferably includes a probability term for spurious allele occurrence.
  • the probability preferably includes a probability term for spurious allele non-occurrence.
  • the probability preferably includes a probability term for stutter occurrence.
  • the probability preferably includes a probability term for stutter non-occurrence.
  • the probability preferably includes a probability term for allele dropout occurrence.
  • the probability preferably includes a probability term for allele dropout non-occurrence.
  • the probability preferably includes a probability term for artifact reporting occurrence.
  • the probability preferably includes a probability term for artifact reporting non-occurrence.
  • the probability function may include, and ideally is a multiple of, the probability of that possible identity occurring in a population.
  • Reference to a population may include the world population, a representative sample there of, an arbitrary selected population, pseudo-random population, database content or other population.
  • the probability function may involve, with respect to the alleles of the individual reference result, one or more of:—a probability term for one or both alleles that drop out did not occur; a probability term for one or both alleles that stutter did not occur; a probability term for one or both alleles that spurious alleles did not occur, a probability term for one or both alleles that other artifacts did not occur.
  • the probability function may involve, with respect to the alleles of the individual reference result, one or more of:—a probability term for the matching allele that drop out did not occur; a probability term for the non-matching allele that drop out did occur; a probability term for stutter of the matching allele that stutter did occur, a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that a spurious allele occurs (preferably with a term relating to the frequency of occurrence of that allele in a population); a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that an artifact occurs.
  • the probability function may involve, with respect to the alleles of the individual reference result, one or more of:—a probability term for the matching allele that drop out did not occur; a probability term for the non-matching allele that drop out did occur, a probability term for stutter of the matching allele that stutter did occur; a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that a spurious allele occurs (preferably with a term relating to the frequency of occurrence of that allele in a population); a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that an artifact occurs.
  • the probability function may involve, with respect to the alleles of the individual reference result, one or more of:—where the non-matching allele is one repeat unit more (or 4 bases more for a tetrameric locus) than the higher allele of the individual test result: a probability term for the matching allele that drop out did not occur; a probability term for the non-matching allele that drop out did occur, a probability term for stutter of the non-matching allele that stutter did occur; a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that a spurious allele occurs Preferably with a term relating to the frequency of occurrence of that allele in a population); a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that an artifact occurs: and
  • the probability function may involve, with respect to the alleles of the individual reference result, one or more of:—where one of the non-matching allele is one repeat unit more (or 4 bases more for a tetrameric locus) than the higher allele of the individual test result: a probability term for both the non-matching alleles that drop out did not occur; a probability term for stutter of one of the non-matching alleles that stutter did occur; a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that a spurious allele occurs (preferably with a term relating to the frequency of occurrence of that allele in a population); a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that an artifact occurs: and where neither the non-matching alleles is one repeat
  • the probability function may involve, with respect to the alleles of the individual reference result, one or more of:—a probability term for the matching allele that drop out did not occur, a probability term for stutter of the matching allele that stutter did occur; a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that a spurious allele occurs (preferably with a term relating to the frequency of occurrence of that allele in a population); a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that an artifact occurs.
  • the probability function may involve, with respect to the alleles of the individual reference result, one or more of:—a probability term for the matching allele that drop out did not occur; a probability term for stutter of the matching allele that stutter did not occur; a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that a spurious allele occurs (preferably with a term relating to the frequency of occurrence of that allele in a population); a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that an artifact occurs.
  • the probability function may involve, with respect to the alleles of the individual reference result, one or more of:—a probability term for the matching allele that drop out did not occur; a probability term for stutter of the matching allele that stutter did not occur; a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that a spurious allele occurs (preferably with a term relating to the frequency of occurrence of that allele in a population); a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that an artifact occurs.
  • the probability function may involve, with respect to the alleles of the individual reference result, one or more of:—where the non-matching allele is one repeat unit more (4 bases more for a tetrameric locus) than one of the individual test result alleles a probability term for the non-matching allele that drop out did occur, a probability term for stutter of the non-matching allele that stutter did occur, a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that a spurious allele occurs (preferably with a term relating to the frequency of occurrence of that allele in a population); a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that an artifact occurs: and where the non-matching allele is not one repeat unit more (4 bases more for a tetrameric locus) than one of the individual test result alleles a probability term for the non-matching allele that drop out did occur, a probability term for stutter of the non-matching allele that stutter
  • the probability function may involve, with respect to the alleles of the individual reference result, one or more of:—where the higher allele of the individual reference result is one repeat unit more (4 bases more for a tetrameric locus) than the allele of the individual test result; a probability term for the matching allele that drop out did not occur, a probability for the non-matching allele that drop out did occur; a probability term for stutter of the non-matching allele that stutter did occur; a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that a spurious allele does not occur preferably with a term relating to the frequency of occurrence of that allele in a population); a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that an artifact does not occur: and where the higher allele of the individual reference result is not one repeat unit more (4 bases more for a tetrameric locus) than the allele of the individual test result; a probability term for the matching allele that drop out did not occur,
  • the probability function may involve, with respect to the alleles of the individual reference result, one or more of:—where one of the individual reference result is one repeat unit more (4 bases more for a tetrameric locus) than the allele of the individual test result; a probability term for one or both the non-matching alleles that drop out did occur, a probability for stutter of the non-matching allele which is one repeat unit more (4 bases more for a tetrameric locus) than the individual test result that stutter did occur; a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that a spurious allele does occur (preferably with a term relating to the frequency of occurrence of that allele in a population); a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that an artifact does occur: and where neither of the alleles of the
  • the probability function may involve, with respect to the alleles of the individual reference result, one or more of:—a probability term for the matching allele that drop out did not occur; a probability term for stutter for the matching allele that stutter does not occur; a probability term for the allele of the individual test sample that a spurious allele does not occur (preferably with a term relating to the frequency of occurrence of that allele in a population); a probability term for the allele of the individual test sample that an artifact does not occur.
  • the probability function may involve, with respect to the alleles of the individual reference result, one or more of:—where the non-matching allele of the individual reference result is one repeat unit more (4 bases more for a tetrameric locus) than the allele of the individual test result; a probability term for the non-matching allele that drop out occurs; a probability term for stutter of the non-matching allele that stutter occurs; a probability term for the allele of the individual test sample that a spurious allele occurs (preferably with a term relating to the frequency of occurrence of that allele in a population); a probability term for the allele of the individual test sample that an affect does occur.
  • the various possible routes for the individual stored result giving the individual sample result may include contamination giving one or more alleles in the individual sample result not present in the individual stored result.
  • the various possible routes for the individual stored result giving the individual sample result may include stutter giving one or more alleles in the individual sample result not present in the individual stored result.
  • the various possible routes for the individual stored result giving the individual sample result may include amplification of artifacts giving one or more alleles in the individual sample result not present in the individual stored result.
  • the various possible routes for the individual stored result giving the individual sample result may include allele drop out giving one or more alleles missing in the individual sample result present in the individual stored result.
  • the probability function may include a probability that contamination may occur.
  • the probability that contamination may occur may be determined by one or more control determinations.
  • the control determinations may be made in parallel with the determination of the identity of the alleles of the test sample.
  • the control determinations may be made separately, for instance as a reference investigation used subsequently in two or more test sample determinations.
  • the probability that contamination may occur may be provided for by theoretical predictions.
  • the probability function may include a probability that stutter may occur.
  • the probability that stutter may occur may be determined by one or more control determinations.
  • the control determinations may be made in parallel with the determination of the identity of the alleles of the test sample.
  • the control determinations may be made separately, for instance as a reference investigation used subsequently in two or more test sample determinations
  • the probability that stutter may occur may be provided for by theoretical predictions.
  • the probability function may include a probability that allele dropout may occur.
  • the probability that allele dropout may occur may be determined by one or more control determinations.
  • the control determinations may be made in parallel with the determination of the identity of the alleles of the test sample.
  • the control determinations may be made separately, for instance as a reference investigation used subsequently in two or more test sample determinations.
  • the probability that allele dropout may occur may be provided for by theoretical predictions.
  • the probability function may include a probability that artifact reporting may occur.
  • the probability that artifact reporting may occur may be determined by one or more control determinations.
  • the control determinations may be made in parallel with the determination of the identity of the alleles of the test sample.
  • the control determinations may be made separately, for instance as a reference investigation used subsequently in two or more test sample determinations.
  • the probability that artifact reporting may occur may be provided for by theoretical predictions.
  • the spurious information may be due to contamination effects, allele dropout effects, locus dropout effects, stutter effects, are effects or other causes.
  • the contribution of the spurious information may lead to an allele being present which is not part of the DNA test sample, the absence of alleles which should be present from the DNA test sample, the presence of apparent alleles in positions one repeat unit (4 bases lower for a tetrameric locus) than the alleles in the DNA test sample.
  • the consideration is applied to a plurality of loci, ideally all loci for which individual stored results and/or individual test results exist.
  • the combination of probabilities produced by the respective considerations is preferably obtained by multiplying the probabilities together.
  • Two or more different determinations of the identities of the alleles in the test sample may be performed.
  • the method may be applied to each set of individual test results thereby obtained.
  • the expression of a likelihood ratio for respective sets of individual test results may be considered against one another and/or combined.
  • the expression of a likelihood ratio and/or a combined expression of a likelihood ratio that a given reference sample and test sample match may be generated for a plurality, ideally all, of the reference samples available.
  • the reference samples may be ranked in order of the likelihood ratios of a match with the test sample, ideally descending order.
  • one of the theoretical allele identities being the identity determined for that locus for the known source
  • the second aspect of the invention may include features, options or possibilities set out elsewhere in this document.
  • At least part of a DNA sample may refer to one source of a multi-source or mixed sample.
  • the method may indicate calculation of a likelihood ratio relating to one or more sources of a defined nature, for instance the likelihood ratio may evaluate the proposition of two defined continuous to the sample.
  • the known source may refer to a known individual and/or be associated with one or more other known factors, such as a location, item or event the sample was recovered from.
  • the identity of the alleles at one or more of the loci of the test sample may be determined by short tandem repeat based investigation.
  • An individual sample result is preferably the allele or alleles detected for that given locus and/or the apparent alleles detected when that locus is considered.
  • the individual sample result may comprise 0 to 50 alleles but more usually comprises 0 to 32 alleles.
  • the individual sample result may thus include the homozygous or heterozygous alleles of the test sample's source, homozygous and/or heterozygous alleles from DNA contamination of the test sample and/or stutters of these and/or other amplification artifacts.
  • the consideration is preferably provided for between 1 and 25 loci and more preferably between 1 and 16 loci. Preferably an equivalent consideration process is provided for each loci.
  • the loci for which allele identity is determined may particularly be selected to include one or more of HWMVWFA31, HUMTH01, D21S11, D18S51, HUMFIBRA, D8S1179, HUMAMGXA, HUMAMGY, D3S1358, HUMVWA, D16S539, D2S1338, Amelogenin, D8S1179, D22S11, D18S51, D19S433, HUMTH01, HUMFIBRA/FGA.
  • the loci selected may particularly be each of D3S1358,HUMVWA, D16S539, D2S1338, Amelogenin8S1179, D21S11, D18S51, D19S433, HUMTH01, HUMFIBRA/FGA.
  • the theoretical identities may be determined from the alleles indicated in the individual test result. All possible theoretical identities may be determined, but more preferably those theoretical identities which could reasonably lead to the individual test result are determine. Those theoretical identities defied as reasonable may be all identities where an allele in the test sample is in common with the reference sample. The determination may involve providing theoretic identities corresponding to each permutation of two alleles, where at least one of those alleles matches an allele in the individual test result.
  • the provision of a theoretical probability function may involve the probability of getting that individual test result in any way, including through spurious information occurrence.
  • the provision of a probability function may involve the probability of getting that individual test result in any way, including through spurious information occurrence, and the frequency of that given theoretical identity in a population.
  • the provision of a probability function may involve the probability of getting that individual test result in any way, including through spurious information occurrence, and the frequency of that theoretical identity in a population, for each individual test result.
  • the theoretical probability function for each individual reference result theoretical identity is preferably defined in part by a probability for that individual reference results identity occurrence in a population.
  • the theoretical probability function for each individual reference result is preferably defined in part by a probability for the various occurrences which would result in that individual reference result giving the individual test result.
  • Theoretical probability functions may be provided to account for each of the individual test results determined for a locus in the aforementioned manner.
  • the theoretical probability functions for each individual test result given an individual reference result are combined, ideally before the theoretical probability functions for different individual reference results are combined.
  • the theoretical probability functions for different individual test results are combined by multiplication
  • the theoretical probability functions for different individual reference results are combined by addition.
  • the probability preferably includes a probability term for spurious allele occurrence.
  • the probability preferably includes a probability term for spurious allele non-occurrence.
  • the probability preferably includes a probability term for stutter occurrence.
  • the probability preferably includes a probability term for stutter non-occurrence.
  • the probability preferably includes a probability term for allele dropout occurrence.
  • the probability preferably includes a probability term for allele dropout non-occurrence.
  • the probability preferably includes a probability term for artifact reporting occurrence.
  • the probability preferably includes a probability term for artifact reporting non-occurrence.
  • the probability function may include, and ideally is a multiple of, the probability of that possible identity occurring in a population.
  • Reference to a population may include the world population, a representative sample there of, an array selected population pseudo random population, database content or other population.
  • the probability function may involve, with respect to the alleles of the individual reference result, one or more of:—a probability term for one or both alleles that drop out did not occur; a probability term for one or both alleles that stutter did not occur, a probability term for one or both alleles that spurious alleles did not occur, a probability term for one or both alleles that other artifacts did not occur.
  • the probability function may involve, with respect to the alleles of the individual reference result, one or more of:—a probability term for the matching allele that drop out did not occur; a probability term for the non-matching allele that drop out did occur; a probability term for stutter of the matching allele that stutter did occur; a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that a spurious allele occurs (preferably with a term relating to the frequency of occurrence of that allele in a population); a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that an artifact occurs.
  • the probability faction may involve, with respect to the alleles of the individual reference result, one or more of:—a probability term for the matching allele that drop out did not occur; a probability term for the non-matching allele that drop out did occur; a probability term for stutter of the matching allele that stutter did occur, a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that a spurious allele occurs (preferably with a term relating to the frequency of occurrence of that allele in a population); a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that an artifact occurs.
  • the probability function may involve, with respect to the alleles of the individual reference result, one or more of:—where the non-matching allele is one repeat unit more (or 4 bases more for a tetrameric locus) than the higher allele of the individual test result, a probability term for the matching allele that drop out did not occur; a probability term for the non-matching allele that drop out did occur, a probability term for stutter of the non-matching allele that stutter did occur; a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that a spurious allele occurs (preferably with a term relating to the frequency of occurrence of that allele in a population); a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that an artifact occurs: and where the non-matching allele is one repeat unit more (or 4 bases more for a tetrameric locus) than the higher allele of the individual test result, a probability term for the matching allele that drop out did not occur; a probability
  • the probability function may involve, with respect to the alleles of the individual reference result, one or more of:—where one of the non-matching allele is one repeat wait more (or 4 bases more for a tetrameric locus) than the higher allele of the individual test result, a probability term for both the non-matching alleles that drop out did not occur; a probability term for stutter of one of the non-matching alleles that stutter did occur, a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that a spurious allele occurs preferably with a term relating to the frequency of occurrence of that allele in a population); a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that an artifact occurs; and where neither the non-matching alleles is one repeat
  • the probability function may involve, with respect to the alleles of the individual reference result, one or more of:—a probability term for the matching allele that drop out did not occur; a probability term for stutter of the matching allele that stutter did occur; a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that a spurious allele occurs (preferably with a term relating to the frequency of occurrence of that allele in a population); a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that an artifact occurs.
  • the probability function may involve, with respect to the alleles of the individual reference result, one or more of:—a probability term for the matching allele that drop out did not occur; a probability term for stutter of the matching allele that stutter did not occur; a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that a spurious allele occurs (preferably with a term relating to the frequency of occurrence of that allele in a population); a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that an artifact occurs.
  • the probability function may involve, with respect to the alleles of the individual reference result, one or more of:—a probability term for the matching allele that drop out did not occur; a probability term for stutter of the matching allele that stutter did not occur; a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that a spurious allele occurs (preferably with a term relating to the frequency of occurrence of that allele in a population); a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that an artifact occurs.
  • the probability function may involve, with respect to the alleles of the individual reference result, one or more of:—where the higher allele of the individual reference result is one repeat unit more (4 bases more for a tetrameric locus) than the allele of the individual test result: a probability term for the matching allele that drop out did not occur, a probability for the non-matching allele that drop out did occur; a probability term for stutter of the non-matching allele that stutter did occur, a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that a spurious allele does not occur (preferably with a term relating to the frequency of occurrence of that allele in a population); a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that an artifact does not occur: and where the higher allele of the individual reference result is not one repeat unit more (4 bases more for a tetrameric locus) than the allele of the individual test result: a probability term for the matching allele that drop out did not occur,
  • the probability function may involve, with respect to the alleles of the individual reference result, one or more of:—where one of the individual reference result is one repeat unit more (4 bases more for a tetrameric locus) than the allele of the individual test result: a probability term for one or both the non-matching alleles that drop out did occur; a probability for stutter of the non-matching allele which is one repeat unit more (4 bases more for a tetrameric locus) than the individual test result that stutter did occur; a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that a spurious allele does occur (preferably with a term relating to the frequency of occurrence of that allele in a population); a probability term for one or both alleles of the individual test sample that an artifact does occur: and where neither of the alleles of the
  • the probability function may involve, with respect to the alleles of the individual reference result, one or more of:—a probability term for the matching allele that drop out did not occur; a probability term for stutter for the matching allele that stutter does not occur; a probability term for the allele of the individual test sample that a spurious allele does not occur (preferably with a term relating to the frequency of occurrence of that allele in a population); a probability term for the allele of the individual test sample that an artifact does not occur.
  • the probability function may involve, with respect to the alleles of the individual reference result, one or more of:—where the non-matching allele of the individual reference result is one repeat unit more (4 bases more for a tetrameric locus) than the allele of the individual test result: a probability term for the non-matching allele that drop out occurs; a probability term for stutter of the non-matching allele that stutter occurs; a probability term for the allele of the individual test sample that a spurious allele occurs (preferably with a term relating to the frequency of occurrence of that allele in a population); a probability term for the allele of the individual test sample that an artifact does occur.
  • the various possible routes for the individual reference result giving the individual test result may include contamination giving one or more alleles in the individual test result not present in the individual reference result.
  • the various possible routes for the individual reference result giving the individual test result may include stutter giving one or more alleles in the individual test result not present in the individual reference result.
  • the various possible routes for the individual reference result giving the individual test result may include amplification of artifacts giving one or more alleles in the individual test result not present in the individual reference result.
  • the various possible routes for the individual reference result giving the individual test result may include allele drop out giving one or more alleles missing in the individual test result present in the individual reference result.
  • the probability function may include a probability that contamination may occur.
  • the probability that contamination may occur may be determined by one or more control determinations.
  • the control determinations may be made in parallel with the determination of the identity of the alleles of the test sample.
  • the control determinations may be made separately, for instance as a reference investigation used subsequently in two or more test sample determinations.
  • the probability that contamination may occur may be provided for by theoretical predictions.
  • the probability function may include a probability that stutter may occur.
  • the probability that stutter may occur may be determined by one or more control determinations.
  • the control determinations may be made in parallel with the determination of the identity of the alleles of the test sample.
  • the control determinations may be made separately, for instance as a reference investigation used subsequently in two or more test sample determinations.
  • the probability that stutter may occur may be provided for by theoretical predictions.
  • the probability function may include a probability that allele dropout may occur.
  • the probability that allele dropout may occur may be determined by one or more control determinations.
  • the control determinations may be made in parallel with the determination of the identity of the alleles of the test sample.
  • the control determinations may be made separately, for instance as a reference investigation used subsequently in two or more test sample determinations,
  • the probability that allele dropout may occur may be provided for by theoretical predictions.
  • the probability function may include a probability that artifact reporting may occur.
  • the probability that artifact reporting may occur may be determined by one or more control determinations for control determinations may be made in parallel with the determination of the identity of the alleles of the test sample.
  • the control determinations may be made separately, for instance as a reference investigation used subsequently in two or more test sample determinations.
  • the probability that artifact reporting may occur may be provided for by theoretical predictions.
  • the spurious information may be due to contamination effects, allele dropout effects, locus dropout effects, stutter effects, artifact effects or other causes.
  • the contribution of the spurious information may lead to an allele being present which is not part of the DNA test sample, the absence of alleles which should be present from the DNA test sample, the presence of apparent alleles in positions one repeat unit less (or 4 bases less for a tetrameric locus) than the alleles in the DNA test sample.
  • the theoretical probability functions may be combined to give the overall combined theoretical probability function by summing the theoretical probability functions together.
  • the provision of the probability function results matching the known source's identity may involve the probability of getting that individual test result given that individual reference result, including through spurious information occurrence.
  • the provision of the probability function for the individual reference may involve the probability of getting that individual test result given that individual reference result, including through spurious information occurrence, for each individual test result.
  • the known source's theoretical function and combined theoretical function may be combined as a ratio, preferably as a likelihood ratio.
  • the likelihood ratio preferably accounts for the probability that a given individual reference result/theoretical identity leads to the individual test result against the probability that the individual test result was lead to in another way.
  • the likelihood ratio may be the known source's theoretical function divided by the combined theoretical function.
  • We method is repeated for a plurality of loci, ideally all loci for which individual test results exist.
  • the likelihood ratio obtained for each loci may be multiplied together to give a combined loci likelihood ratio.
  • Two or more different determinations of the identities of the alleles in the test sample may be performed.
  • the method may be applied to each set of individual test results thereby obtained.
  • the expression of the likelihood ratio for respective sets of individual test results may be considered against one another and/or combined.
  • the third aspect of the invention may include any of the features, options or possibilities set out elsewhere in this document, including the first and/or second aspects of the invention.
  • the DNA sample analysis is preferably a consideration of the likelihood ratio that a sample arose from one or more scenarios compared with the sample arising from the other possible scenarios.
  • the probability functions may be particularly provided according to the definitions of the first and/or second aspects of the invention.
  • the probability functions preferably take into account the probability of spurious information potentially contributing to the results obtained upon analysis of the sample.
  • the approximating function may provide an indication of the probability within certain acceptable ranges for potential variables of the analysis process.
  • the approximating function may be an accurate assumption of the probability within these acceptable ranges.
  • the approximating function may be an inaccurate assumption of the probability outside these acceptable ranges.
  • the scaling factor may account for one or more variables in the analysis.
  • the one or more variables may be sources of error,
  • the one or more variables may be probabilities of spurious information contributing to the results of the analysis of the sample.
  • the spurious information sources may be one or more of allele/locus dropout, stutter, contamination or artifact reporting.
  • variable value is preferably between 0 and 1 inclusive.
  • the variable value may be assigned values at increments of 0.1 or less for the investigation.
  • each combination of the incremental values is considered for the variables which contribute to a given scaling factor.
  • a scaling for may involve one, two, three, four or more variables depending upon the scaling factor.
  • values for the scaling factor are determined for all possible combinations of the variable's values.
  • the acceptable range is preferably a range in which the scaling factor has a minimal effect on the probability function if it is included compared with if it is excluded
  • the range for the scaling factor may be between 0.9 and 1.1 in some cases. In other cases the scaling factor may be between 0.9 and 1.
  • a fourth aspect of the invention we provide a method of indicating a likelihood ratio that at least a part of a DNA sample arose from a known source or sources, the method involving:
  • the consideration of a likelihood ratio that the known source leads to the individual test result compared with the other possible routes to the individual test result the likelihood ratio being based on one or more probability functions, at least one of the probability functions being defined by an approximating function and a scaling factor, the scaling factor including at least one variable term relating to the probability of spurious information potentially contributing to the individual result;
  • one or more of the probability functions defined by a scaling factor including that variable being deemed defined by the approximating function where that variable has a value within its acceptable range and/or where the scaling factor has a value within its predetermined or acceptable range, the so defined one or more probability functions being used as the basis for the likelihood ratio.
  • the fourth aspect of the invention may include any of the features, options or possibilities set out elsewhere in His document, including the first and/or second and/or third aspects of the invention.
  • the value of one or more of the variables may be determined for the method in a different way from the determination of one or more other variables.
  • the determination may be carried out for the laboratory where the analysis of the DNA sample will be performed. The determination may be performed alongside the analysis. The determination may be performed separately form the analysis, including periodic determinations and even one off determinations.
  • the determination may be made using control analyses, including negative and/or positive controls. Experimental deterioration is preferred for the contamination value, for instance. The determination may be made theoretically.
  • the acceptable range is preferably a range in which the scaling factor has a minimal effect on the probability function if it is included compared with if it is excluded.
  • the range for the scaling factor may be between 0.9 and 1.1 in some cases. In other cases the scaling factor may be between 0.9 and 1.
  • the probability functions may be defined by the approximating fiction and scaling factor where the variable values for that probability function and/or the scaling factor value for that probability function is outside the acceptable ranges.
  • One or more probability functions defined by the approximating function and scaling factor may be used in combination with one or more probability functions defined by the approximating function, but in general all the probability functions will be defined by either the approximating function and scaling factor or by the approximating factor alone.
  • FIG. 1 illustrates the consideration of results from DNA analysis in a technique not according to the present invention
  • FIG. 2 illustrates the consideration of results from DNA analysis in a technique according to one embodiment of the present invention
  • FIG. 3 provides Table 1 which illustrates the calculation of the components of the likelihood ratio for an example where tree individual results show evidence of spurious bands and allele dropout;
  • FIG. 4 illustrates Table 2 and the calculation of the components of the likelihood ratio for an example involving stutter
  • FIG. 5 illustrates graphically the testing of the robustness of the F designation from example 1a
  • FIG. 6 a illustrates graphically the evaluation of scaling factor in example 1c
  • FIG. 6 b illustrates graphically the evaluation of the scaling factor of example 1c three dimensionally
  • FIG. 7 a illustrates graphically the evaluation of the scaling function from example 2a
  • FIG. 7 b illustrates graphically the evaluation of the scaling factor from example 2a three dimensionally
  • FIG. 8 a illustrates graphically the evaluation of the scaling factor from example 2b
  • FIG. 8 b illustrates graphically the evaluation of the scaling factor from example 2b three dimensionally
  • FIG. 9 illustrates graphically the evaluation of the scaling function from example 3a.
  • FIG. 10 represents Table 3, an analysis of p(D) parameters derived from experimental observation.
  • the individual results can include information not arising from the DNA actually under investigation and/or not accurately represent the variations in the DNA in question which is actually being considered. This is particularly true for analysis techniques where amplification occurs, such as PCR based analysis.
  • the problems become increasingly significant as the size of the initial DNA sample to be investigated becomes smaller. By the time investigations on a small number of cells are considered, 10 or less for instance, then substantial potential for such issues exists.
  • even the lowest levels of DNA contamination from sample collection, laboratory handling or the equipment itself can have a marked effect on the individual results obtained.
  • locus or article dropout can occur and the amplified products may not fully reflect the DNA of the sample.
  • stutters in the results will be in distinguishable from genuine allele results.
  • the present invention in one embodiment below, aims to provide a system which takes in to account all the information obtained on a sample of unknown source and expresses a likelihood ratio that it matches with each of various known reference samples, rather than indicating a match or non-match against each.
  • the present invention thus aims to reduce the skill required to perform an analysis but improve the accuracy and/or level of information provided by the analysis.
  • the present invention in one embodiment below, aims to provide a system which accounts for the other sources of information effectively and in a standardised way.
  • the present invention as embodied below, aims to provide results which are based on all of the initial individual results obtained, rather than the results after a screening process.
  • the present invention aims to investigate and determine the impact of the other sources of information and particularly their probability of occurrence on a process for investigating DNA samples.
  • the invention aims to provide a system which provides results for a DNA analysis technique based on certain approximations as to how the results are calculated, but with the validity of those approximations being checked.
  • the invention as embodied below, aims to provide an effective process which does not require human expertise to interpret.
  • the predominant forms which can be accounted for are contraction with other DNA not originally in the sample; locus or allele drop out for information in the sample but not reporting in the results obtained; and stuttering where the amplified products include identities which are one repeat unit (or four bases less for a tetrameric locus) less than the associated allele and may be an allele too or a false amplification product.
  • Locus/allele drop out is also a potential problem particularly with amplification of small DNA samples.
  • a heterozygote sample should produce two alleles of the locus upon amplification, However, because amplification is an essentially random process, the fact that the amplification starts from only a few molecules may mean that problems with amplifying one of those alleles at an early stage lead to it not being present to a detectable degree in the amplification product. This can imply a homozygote identity where in reality the identity is heterozygote.
  • Stutters are artifacts from short tandem repeat systems and generally represent results one repeat unit (or four bases less for a tetrameric locus) than the associated allele. Whilst stutters are predictable when large samples are amplified (they generally form a 15% peak compared with the associated allele peak). This is not the case in small sample amplification. As a consequence, stutters can appear close to and even exceed the size of the actual allele peaks. This can be a significant issue, particularly if the sample might be heterozygote with one of the alleles being four bases less than the other, and could consequently be confused with homozygote and stutter result.
  • the result of the expert analysis is either that an individual result for the unknown sample is discounted from fiber consideration or is included in the results for future consideration.
  • the raw individual results, set A may be whittled down by the expert, excluding individual results which are caused for question, to give the individual results included for further consideration, set B in FIG. 1,
  • This screened set, set B is then compared with stored results for various samples of known origin, as exemplified by sets C and D in FIG. 1.
  • a match is either agreed between the alleles forming the individual results, as between set B and set C in FIG. 1, or a match is not agreed, as between set B and set D in FIG. 1.
  • the extent of the question marks over the raw individual results may lead to a substantial number being inconclusive and hence the match/non-match decision may be made based on a few points only and hence be of reduced statistical significance.
  • likelihood ratio based on the formats, likelihood ratio, LR, is given by:
  • This type of technique can significantly simplify the interpretation of mixed DNA samples. Such situations occur, for instance, where a suspect may or may not have contributed to the mixture along with another known person and/or another unknown person as against the sample arising from an unknown person and another known person and/or unknown person. As against the previous thethodology where interpretation was often impossible, the present invention always allows a likelihood ratio to be presented. Thus a likelihood ratio may be expressed as:
  • the analysis can consider each stored sample in the database in turn in mailing such an analysis.
  • the technique of the invention generally aims to provide a likelihood ratio, LR, for the event being considered. In many cases this may be the likelihood that a suspect was the source of the DNA being analysed compared to the likelihood that the DNA source was someone else.
  • LR likelihood ratio
  • the initial results must be obtained.
  • an amplification process such as PCR, to make many multiple copies of the DNA present in the initial sample.
  • the number of cycles used may be between 30 and 34 cycles to achieve the necessary number of copies.
  • the amplification process is generally concerned with producing enough material for effective investigation of the allele identity at a large number of locations.
  • Techniques for analysing mixtures are known based around the use of short tandem repeats (STR's) as described by Clayton et al (1998) Analysis and Interpretation of Mixed Forensic Stains Using DNA STR Profiling, Int. J. Forensic Sci. 91, 55-70.
  • H 1 is the probability of the evidence if the profile is the suspect's and H 2 is the probability of the evidence if the profile is of someone other than the suspect.
  • H 2 is the probability of the evidence if the profile is of someone other than the suspect.
  • the probability is the probability of allele drop out (to account for 16 not reporting) multiplied by the probability of no allele drop out (to account for 12 reporting) multiplied by the probability of no spurious reports (to account for no spurious 16 arising)
  • the equivalent process for result 12 with possible allele identity 16, 16 would be the product of the probability of allele dropout (to account for 16 not being reported), the probability of spurious reports (to account for 12 being reported) and the probability of 12 occurring as an allele (to account for differences in the likelihoods of that particular spurious allele occurring).
  • Column 6 of Table 1 represents the product of columns 2, 3, 4 and 5 and relates to the overall probability that the allele identity that row represents the set of actual individual results. The sum of column 6 gives the overall denominator for the likelihood ratio.
  • the numerator for the likelihood ratio is the product of columns 3, 4 and 5 for the row having the identity corresponding to the suspect's identity/alleles, in this case row 3.
  • p(C) can be estimated from a history of observation and/or can be deterred for a laboratory, for instance, by a series of negative control tests and a consideration of spurious bands arising in those.
  • p(D) can also be estimated from a history of observation and/or can be determined by experimentation.
  • column 1 gives the three reasonable possible identities which could have given the individual results and column 2 is the probability of those possible identities occurring.
  • the equations also enable the impact of the likelihood that contamination occurs, dropout will occur or stutter will occur upon the analysis process to be considered.
  • Such an investigation can be used to determine appropriate thresholds for those probabilities before which certain approximations can be deemed to be held true and beyond which cam approximations can be deemed to not hold true.
  • This is, potentially pre-calculated information, could be stored and then used in a DNA analysis technique to determine whether the results obtained can be processed using an analysing process in which approximations for likelihood ratios or other presentation of the results are used. This concept is discussed in more detail below together with additional details of the particular approximations which might be used in particular circumstances or scenarios.
  • n is greater than or equal to 2
  • p(D He ) the probability that a given allele drops out given that the locus is heterozygous.
  • D18S51 is straight-forward since the 12 16 genotype was observe in both replicates.
  • the analysis of D2S133 follows from the equation applied to HUMTH01 above.
  • the present invention generally provides a technique which can be used to evaluate the impact of variations in the probabilities of occurrence of various other information sources and extend that information to verification of the accuracy in applying certain assumptions to DNA analysis techniques.

Landscapes

  • Life Sciences & Earth Sciences (AREA)
  • Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
  • Bioinformatics & Cheminformatics (AREA)
  • Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Biotechnology (AREA)
  • General Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
  • Biophysics (AREA)
  • Analytical Chemistry (AREA)
  • Bioinformatics & Computational Biology (AREA)
  • Chemical & Material Sciences (AREA)
  • Evolutionary Biology (AREA)
  • Proteomics, Peptides & Aminoacids (AREA)
  • Medical Informatics (AREA)
  • Spectroscopy & Molecular Physics (AREA)
  • Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
  • Genetics & Genomics (AREA)
  • Molecular Biology (AREA)
  • Measuring Or Testing Involving Enzymes Or Micro-Organisms (AREA)
  • Apparatus Associated With Microorganisms And Enzymes (AREA)
US09/834,822 2000-04-15 2001-04-13 Analysis of DNA samples Abandoned US20020007248A1 (en)

Priority Applications (5)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
US10/977,698 US20050064500A1 (en) 2000-04-15 2004-10-29 Analysis of DNA samples
US12/042,894 US20080286782A1 (en) 2000-04-15 2008-03-05 Analysis of dna samples
US12/643,723 US20100216144A1 (en) 2000-04-15 2009-12-21 Analysis of dna samples
US13/163,147 US20120123687A1 (en) 2000-04-15 2011-06-17 Analysis of dna samples
US13/914,174 US10007754B2 (en) 2000-04-15 2013-06-10 Analysis of DNA samples

Applications Claiming Priority (2)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
GBGB0009294.0A GB0009294D0 (en) 2000-04-15 2000-04-15 Improvements in and relating to analysis of DNA samples
GB0009294.0 2000-04-15

Related Child Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
US10/977,698 Continuation US20050064500A1 (en) 2000-04-15 2004-10-29 Analysis of DNA samples

Publications (1)

Publication Number Publication Date
US20020007248A1 true US20020007248A1 (en) 2002-01-17

Family

ID=9889962

Family Applications (6)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
US09/834,822 Abandoned US20020007248A1 (en) 2000-04-15 2001-04-13 Analysis of DNA samples
US10/977,698 Abandoned US20050064500A1 (en) 2000-04-15 2004-10-29 Analysis of DNA samples
US12/042,894 Abandoned US20080286782A1 (en) 2000-04-15 2008-03-05 Analysis of dna samples
US12/643,723 Abandoned US20100216144A1 (en) 2000-04-15 2009-12-21 Analysis of dna samples
US13/163,147 Abandoned US20120123687A1 (en) 2000-04-15 2011-06-17 Analysis of dna samples
US13/914,174 Expired - Fee Related US10007754B2 (en) 2000-04-15 2013-06-10 Analysis of DNA samples

Family Applications After (5)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
US10/977,698 Abandoned US20050064500A1 (en) 2000-04-15 2004-10-29 Analysis of DNA samples
US12/042,894 Abandoned US20080286782A1 (en) 2000-04-15 2008-03-05 Analysis of dna samples
US12/643,723 Abandoned US20100216144A1 (en) 2000-04-15 2009-12-21 Analysis of dna samples
US13/163,147 Abandoned US20120123687A1 (en) 2000-04-15 2011-06-17 Analysis of dna samples
US13/914,174 Expired - Fee Related US10007754B2 (en) 2000-04-15 2013-06-10 Analysis of DNA samples

Country Status (8)

Country Link
US (6) US20020007248A1 (fr)
EP (1) EP1280933B1 (fr)
AT (1) ATE420206T1 (fr)
AU (1) AU2001248547A1 (fr)
DE (1) DE60137322D1 (fr)
ES (1) ES2320529T3 (fr)
GB (1) GB0009294D0 (fr)
WO (1) WO2001079541A2 (fr)

Cited By (11)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US20040215401A1 (en) * 2003-04-25 2004-10-28 Krane Dan Edward Computerized analysis of forensic DNA evidence
WO2005007885A1 (fr) * 2003-07-15 2005-01-27 The Secretary Of State For The Home Department Ameliorations dans le domaine de l'analyse de l'adn et concernant ce domaine
US20050064500A1 (en) * 2000-04-15 2005-03-24 The Secretary Of State For The Home Department Analysis of DNA samples
US20060014195A1 (en) * 2004-07-09 2006-01-19 The Secretary Of State For The Home Department Investigation of DNA samples
US20090132173A1 (en) * 2007-11-19 2009-05-21 Forensic Science Service Ltd Computing likelihood ratios using peak heights
US20090222212A1 (en) * 2006-04-03 2009-09-03 Forensic Science Services Ltd. analysis of mixed source dna profiles
WO2009141759A1 (fr) * 2008-05-19 2009-11-26 Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. Système de données auxiliaires (hds) robuste au bruit
US20120046874A1 (en) * 2009-04-09 2012-02-23 Forensic Science Service Limited Consideration of evidence
US20130173172A1 (en) * 2010-03-10 2013-07-04 Lgc Limited Consideration of evidence
US20140089301A1 (en) * 2011-05-23 2014-03-27 Lgc Limited And relating to the matching of forensic results
US20140121993A1 (en) * 2011-06-17 2014-05-01 Lgc Limited Consideration of evidence

Families Citing this family (4)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
GB0130674D0 (en) * 2001-12-21 2002-02-06 Sec Dep Of The Home Department Improvements in and relating to interpreting data
GB0316520D0 (en) * 2003-07-15 2003-08-20 Sec Dep For The Home Departmen Improvements in and relating to items and their treatment
WO2005007884A1 (fr) * 2003-07-15 2005-01-27 The Secretary Of State For The Home Department Utilisation d'oxyde d'ethylene pour obtenir un element sensiblement exempt d'adn
US20090270264A1 (en) * 2008-04-09 2009-10-29 United States Army As Represenfed By The Secretary Of The Army, On Behalf Of Usacidc System and method for the deconvolution of mixed dna profiles using a proportionately shared allele approach

Citations (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US6713253B1 (en) * 1996-10-10 2004-03-30 Interleukin Genetics, Inc. Detecting genetic predisposition to sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy

Family Cites Families (6)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
WO1993025563A1 (fr) 1992-06-17 1993-12-23 City Of Hope Procede de detection de sequences d'acide nucleique et de discrimination entre ces sequences
US5710028A (en) * 1992-07-02 1998-01-20 Eyal; Nurit Method of quick screening and identification of specific DNA sequences by single nucleotide primer extension and kits therefor
GB2312747B (en) 1996-05-04 1998-07-22 Zeneca Ltd Method for the detection of diagnostic base sequences using tailed primers having a detector region
GB0009294D0 (en) 2000-04-15 2000-05-31 Sec Dep For The Home Departmen Improvements in and relating to analysis of DNA samples
FR2809312B1 (fr) 2000-05-25 2002-07-12 Gervais Danone Sa Utilisation de l. casei dans des compositions immunostimulantes
GB0207365D0 (en) 2002-03-28 2002-05-08 Sec Dep Of The Home Department Improvements in and relating to considerations evaluations investigations and searching

Patent Citations (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US6713253B1 (en) * 1996-10-10 2004-03-30 Interleukin Genetics, Inc. Detecting genetic predisposition to sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy

Cited By (28)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US20100216144A1 (en) * 2000-04-15 2010-08-26 Forensic Science Service Ltd. Analysis of dna samples
US10007754B2 (en) 2000-04-15 2018-06-26 Lgc Limited Analysis of DNA samples
US20050064500A1 (en) * 2000-04-15 2005-03-24 The Secretary Of State For The Home Department Analysis of DNA samples
US20080286782A1 (en) * 2000-04-15 2008-11-20 The Secretary Of State For The Home Department, C/O The Forensic Science Service Analysis of dna samples
US20040215401A1 (en) * 2003-04-25 2004-10-28 Krane Dan Edward Computerized analysis of forensic DNA evidence
US7970551B2 (en) 2003-07-15 2011-06-28 Forensic Science Service Limited Analysis of DNA
US20070143028A1 (en) * 2003-07-15 2007-06-21 Peter Gill Analysis of dna
US7668660B2 (en) 2003-07-15 2010-02-23 Forensic Science Service Limited Analysis of DNA
US20100114500A1 (en) * 2003-07-15 2010-05-06 Forensic Science Service Limited Analysis of dna
WO2005007885A1 (fr) * 2003-07-15 2005-01-27 The Secretary Of State For The Home Department Ameliorations dans le domaine de l'analyse de l'adn et concernant ce domaine
US20060014195A1 (en) * 2004-07-09 2006-01-19 The Secretary Of State For The Home Department Investigation of DNA samples
US8057994B2 (en) 2004-07-09 2011-11-15 Forensic Science Service Ltd. Investigation of DNA samples
GB2430033B (en) * 2004-07-09 2010-02-24 Forensic Science Service Ltd Improvements in and relating to the investigation of DNA samples
WO2006005935A1 (fr) * 2004-07-09 2006-01-19 Forensic Science Service Ltd. Ameliorations concernant directement ou indirectement l'analyse d'echantillons d'adn
GB2430033A (en) * 2004-07-09 2007-03-14 Forensic Science Service Ltd Improvements in and relating to the investigation of DNA samples
US20090222212A1 (en) * 2006-04-03 2009-09-03 Forensic Science Services Ltd. analysis of mixed source dna profiles
US8121795B2 (en) * 2007-11-19 2012-02-21 Forensic Science Service Ltd. Computing likelihood ratios using peak heights
AU2008327704B2 (en) * 2007-11-19 2014-06-26 Eurofins Forensic Services Limited Improvement in and relating to the consideration of DNA evidence
US20090132173A1 (en) * 2007-11-19 2009-05-21 Forensic Science Service Ltd Computing likelihood ratios using peak heights
WO2009141759A1 (fr) * 2008-05-19 2009-11-26 Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. Système de données auxiliaires (hds) robuste au bruit
US20120046874A1 (en) * 2009-04-09 2012-02-23 Forensic Science Service Limited Consideration of evidence
US20130173172A1 (en) * 2010-03-10 2013-07-04 Lgc Limited Consideration of evidence
AU2011225897B2 (en) * 2010-03-10 2016-07-28 Eurofins Forensic Services Limited Improvements in and relating to the consideration of evidence
US20140089301A1 (en) * 2011-05-23 2014-03-27 Lgc Limited And relating to the matching of forensic results
EP2715584B1 (fr) * 2011-05-23 2020-06-24 Eurofins Forensic Services Limited Améliorations concernant l'appariement de résultats de médecine légale
US10235458B2 (en) * 2011-05-23 2019-03-19 Eurofins Forensic Services Limited And relating to the matching of forensic results
US20140121993A1 (en) * 2011-06-17 2014-05-01 Lgc Limited Consideration of evidence
AU2012270057B2 (en) * 2011-06-17 2017-02-02 Eurofins Forensic Services Limited Improvements in and relating to the consideration of evidence

Also Published As

Publication number Publication date
AU2001248547A1 (en) 2001-10-30
DE60137322D1 (de) 2009-02-26
US20080286782A1 (en) 2008-11-20
US20050064500A1 (en) 2005-03-24
US20140162253A1 (en) 2014-06-12
WO2001079541A2 (fr) 2001-10-25
US20100216144A1 (en) 2010-08-26
GB0009294D0 (en) 2000-05-31
WO2001079541A8 (fr) 2005-06-30
ATE420206T1 (de) 2009-01-15
EP1280933B1 (fr) 2009-01-07
US10007754B2 (en) 2018-06-26
WO2001079541A3 (fr) 2002-05-30
EP1280933A2 (fr) 2003-02-05
ES2320529T3 (es) 2009-05-25
US20120123687A1 (en) 2012-05-17

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
US10007754B2 (en) Analysis of DNA samples
Balding et al. Weight-of-evidence for Forensic DNA Profiles
Bright et al. Searching mixed DNA profiles directly against profile databases
Mitchell et al. Validation of a DNA mixture statistics tool incorporating allelic drop-out and drop-in
Roon et al. A simulation test of the effectiveness of several methods for error-checking non-invasive genetic data
JP5587197B2 (ja) Ｄｎａ証拠の考察に関する改善
Ley et al. Improving AFLP analysis of large‐scale patterns of genetic variation–a case study with the Central African lianas Haumania spp (Marantaceae) showing interspecific gene flow
US20120173153A1 (en) Data analysis of dna sequences
Morimoto et al. Discrimination of relationships with the same degree of kinship using chromosomal sharing patterns estimated from high-density SNPs
US20160232282A1 (en) System and method for the deconvolution of mixed dna profiles using a proportionately shared allele approach
Benschop et al. Development and validation of a fast and automated DNA identification line
Slooten Familial searching on DNA mixtures with dropout
US7970551B2 (en) Analysis of DNA
AU2011205190B2 (en) Improvements in and relating to analysis of DNA samples
Lucassen et al. Evaluating Mixture Solution™—rapid and non-MCMC probabilistic mixture analysis
AU2007200933A1 (en) Improvements in and relating to analysis of DNA samples
Gill et al. The current status of DNA profiling in the UK
US20030225530A1 (en) Forensic investigations
Chakraborty et al. DNA forensics: a population genetic and biological anthropologocal perspective
US20030068617A1 (en) Method for predicting regulatory elements in repetitive sequences using transcription factor binding sites
Nogel et al. Legislation of forensic DNA analysis in Hungary-past, present and future
LeFebvre et al. Improving STR Profile Success Rates for Property Crime Specimens using InnoQuant® Human DNA Quantification & Degradation Assessment Kit
Cinar Combining information: model selection in meta-analysis and methods for combining correlated p-values
US20030138794A1 (en) Method for the identification of gene transcripts with improved efficiency in the treatment of errors
고병준 Bioinformatic approach for identifying and correcting artifacts in diploid genome assemblies

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
AS Assignment

Owner name: SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT, THE, U

Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:GILL, PETER;WHITAKER, JONATHON;BUCKLETON, JOHN;REEL/FRAME:012006/0882

Effective date: 20010710

STCB Information on status: application discontinuation

Free format text: ABANDONED -- FAILURE TO RESPOND TO AN OFFICE ACTION

AS Assignment

Owner name: FORENSIC SCIENCE SERVICE LTD., UNITED KINGDOM

Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT, THE;REEL/FRAME:017921/0073

Effective date: 20051206