Information on DNA Mixture Interpretation

Workshops, Presentations, and Training Information

• AAFS 2019 Workshop #10 - DNA Mixture Interpretation Principles: Observations from a NIST Scientific Foundation Review (Baltimore, MD) - February 18, 2019 [workshop page with links to individuals presentations]

• USACIL Advanced DNA Mixture Interpretation Workshops (free 4-day 2016-2017 workshops scheduled for September 19-22 at the Illinois State Police (Chicago, IL), October 17-20 Denver Police Department (Denver, CO), and January 23-26, 2017 at the Santa Clara County (San Jose, CA); for more information, see brochure or email: usarmy.dfsc.mixture-workshop@mail.mil

•  Simone Gittelson workshop on Mixture Interpretation & Statistics at the Bode East 14th Annual DNA Technical Conference (Orlando, FL), May 29, 2015

•  Mike Coble and Daniel Katz workshop at the ASCLD Symposium (Washington, DC), April 27, 2015 "DNA Mixture Interpretation" [Mixtures Past] [Maryland State Police Experience] [Mixtures Present] [Mixtures Future] [The DNA Community Experience]

• NIST DNA Analyst Webinar Series: Probabilistic Genotyping and Software Programs (Part 1) (webcast May 28, 2014; 1pm to 5pm Eastern; organized by Mike Coble and John Paul Jones) taught by Susan Berdine (Denver Police Department), Todd Bille (ATF Laboratory), Mike Coble (NIST), Ate Kloosterman (Netherlands Forensic Institute), Craig O'Connor (NYC Office of Chief Medical Examiner), Charlotte Word (Consultant); for more information, see http://www.nist.gov/forensics/nist-dna-analyst-webinar-series-pt1.cfm and http://www.nist.gov/forensics/nist-dna-analyst-webinar-archive.cfm.

• NIST DNA Analyst Webinar Series: Probabilistic Genotyping and Software Programs (Part 2) (webcast September 18, 2014; 11am to 2pm Eastern; organized by Mike Coble and John Paul Jones) taught by Tim Clayton (LGC Forensics, UK), Matthew Greenhalgh (Cellmark Forensics, UK), Lisa Schiermeier-Wood (Virginia Department of Forensic Sciences), Tim Kalafut (US Army Defense Forensic Science Center), and Mike Coble (NIST); for more information see http://www.nist.gov/forensics/nist-dna-analyst-webinar-series-part-2.cfm and http://www.nist.gov/forensics/dna-analyst-webinar-probabilistic-genotyping-software-programs.cfm.  

• Boston University DNA mixture training website (http://www.bu.edu/dnamixtures/) with more than two thousand electronic .fsa profiles from single-source, two-, three-, and four-person mixed DNA samples and a series of lessons regarding DNA profile interpretation (for additional information, see how to use the website http://www.bu.edu/dnamixtures/pages/help/docs/ and website details http://www.bu.edu/dnamixtures/pages/help/introduction/)

• ISFG Basic Interpretation and Advanced Interpretation Workshops (September 2-3, 2013) taught by Jo Bright, Duncan Taylor, Peter Gill, Mike Coble, John Butler, and John Buckleton

• http://www.nist.gov/oles/forensics/dna-analyst-training-on-mixture-interpretation.cfm (April 12, 2013 8-hour webcast)

  • Slides and handouts available at NIST DNA Mixture Interpretation Webcast

  • Video from webcast: http://www.nist.gov/oles/forensics/dna-analyst-training-on-mixture-interpretation-webcast.cfm

   

• Mixtures Using SOUND Statistics, Interpretation & Conclusions (ISHI 2012 Workshop: Butler, Coble, Cotton, Grgicak, Word) [Introduction] [Overview] [Profile1] [Statistics] [Profile Enhancement] [Different Assumptions] [BU Website] [Complex Mixtures] [Probabilistic Genotyping] [Complexity Threshold] [Court] [Future]

   

• John Butler and Mike Coble workshop at the Midwestern Association of Forensic Scientists (MAFS) Fall Meeting (Milwaukee, WI), September 25, 2012, "Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation"

  • [Introductions] [Fundamentals& Literature] [Statistical Approaches] [Thresholds & Low-Level Mixtures] [Probabilistic Genotyping] [Literature Listing]

   

• NIJ Conference DNA Mixture Workshop (June 20, 2012)

  • Robin Cotton [Why Are Mixtures Hard to Interpret?]

  • Charlotte Word [Complex Mixtures]

  • Mike Coble [Statistical Analysis]

  • Robin Cotton {Boston University Website]

  • John Butler [What We Have Learned]

   

• Mixture Interpretation: Using Scientific Analysis (ISHI 2011 Workshop: Butler, Coble, Cotton, Grgicak, Word)

   

• DNA Mixture Analysis: Principles and Practice of Mixture Interpretation and Statistical Analysis Using the SWGDAM STR Interpretation Guidelines (AAFS 2011 Workshop: Butler, Coble, Bille, Adamowicz, Sgueglia, Shutler, Gombos, Wickenheiser)

   

• Mixture Interpretation: Principles, Protocols, and Practice (Workshop: J.M. Butler, M.D. Coble, R.W. Cotton, C.M. Grgicak, C.J. Word, ISHI 2010)

   

• SWGDAM Autosomal STR Interpretation Guidelines (Talk: John Butler, ISHI 2010) - [link to guidelines]

   

• DNA Mixture Interpretation: Principles and Practice in Component Deconvolution and Statistical Analysis (Workshop, AAFS 2008)

• Profile Interpretation Worksheet Example (introduced by Charlotte Word at ISHI 2010 mixture workshop): feel free to use as is or to modify it according to your laboratory needs

• SWGDAM Mixture Committee Resource Page: http://www.cstl.nist.gov/strbase/mixture/SWGDAM-mixture-info.htm

  • Training worked example by Bruce Heidebrecht: "Mixture 6" PowerPoint show (56 Mb)

  • Training worked example by Bruce Heidebrecht: "Mixture IQAS2904" PowerPoint show (35 Mb)

• Report Wording Suggestions (document developed and discussed as part of SWGDAM Jan 2013 meeting)

Links to software programs or information

• Talk given by Mike Coble at the International Society of Forensic Genetics (ISFG) meeting (Vienna, Austria), September 3, 2011, "Exploring the Capabilities of Mixture Interpretation Using TrueAllele Software" [.pdf]

• Talk given by Mike Coble at the ISFG meeting (Melbourne, Australia), September 6, 2013, "An Investigation of Software Programs Using 'Drop-out' and 'Continuous' Methods for Complex Mixture Interpretation" [.pdf]

 

ISFG Software Resources Page: http://www.isfg.org/software

 

Forensic DNA Statistics (Peter Gill): https://sites.google.com/site/forensicdnastatistics/

 

DNAMIX (Bruce Weir): http://www.biostat.washington.edu/~bsweir/DNAMIX3/webpage/

 

LRmix (Hinda Haned): https://sites.google.com/site/forensicdnastatistics/PCR-simulation/lrmix

 

Forensim (Hinda Haned): http://forensim.r-forge.r-project.org/

 

DNA Mixture Separator (Torben Tvedebrink): http://people.math.aau.dk/~tvede/mixsep/

 

likeLTD (David Balding): https://sites.google.com/site/baldingstatisticalgenetics/software/likeltd-r-forensic-dna-r-code

 

Armed Xpert (NicheVision): http://www.armedxpert.com/

 

GeneMapperID-X (Life Technologies/Applied Biosystems): http://idx.appliedbiosystems.com

 

GeneMarker HID (Soft Genetics): http://www.softgenetics.com/GeneMarkerHID.html

 

GenoProof Mixture (Qualitype): http://www.qualitype.de/en/qualitype/genoproof-mixture

 

TrueAllele Casework (Cybergenetics): http://www.cybgen.com/systems/casework.shtml

 

Lab Retriever (Scientific Collaboration, Innovation & Education Group): http://www.scieg.org/lab_retriever.html

 

eDNA Probabilistic Genotyping Tool - "Bullet": http://ednalims.com/probabilistic-genotyping/

 

EPG Maker program (Steven Myers): http://www.cstl.nist.gov/strbase/tools/EPG-Maker(SPMv.3,Dec2-2011).xlt (13 Mb Excel file)

 

Latest EPG Maker program from Jo Bright, ESR: http://www.cstl.nist.gov/strbase/tools/Bright-scaler.xlsx (113 kb Excel worksheet)

 

NOCIt: a method for determining the number of contributors from Catherine Grgicak (Boston University) and collaborators at Rutgers University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology: http://www.bu.edu/dnamixtures/ (3.4 Mb zip file containing software program and technical manual)

Literature References on Elements of Mixture Interpretation

See Chapters 6, 7, 12, and 13 in Butler, J.M. (2015) Advanced Topics in Forensic DNA Typing: Interpretation. Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego, 604 pages.

Mixture Principles & Recommendations

Buckleton, J.S., & Curran, J.M. (2008). A discussion of the merits of random man not excluded and likelihood ratios. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 2, 343-348.

 

Budowle, B., et al. (2009). Mixture interpretation: defining the relevant features for guidelines for the assessment of mixed DNA profiles in forensic casework. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 54, 810-821.

 

DNA Advisory Board (2000) Statistical and population genetic issues affecting the evaluation of the frequency of occurrence of DNA profiles calculated from pertinent population database(s) (approved 23 February 2000). Forensic Science Communications, July 2000. Available at: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/july2000/dnastat.htm.

 

Gill, P., et al. (2006). DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the interpretation of mixtures. Forensic Science International, 160, 90-101.

 

Gill, P., et al. (2008). National recommendations of the technical UK DNA working group on mixture interpretation for the NDNAD and for court going purposes. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 2, 76-82.

 

Morling, N., et al. (2007). Interpretation of DNA mixtures – European consensus on principles.  Forensic Science International: Genetics, 1, 291-292.

 

Puch-Solis, R., Roberts, P., Pope, S., Aitken, C. (2012). Assessing the probative value of DNA evidence: Guidance for judges, lawyers, forensic scientists and expert witnesses. Available at http://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~cgga/Guide-2-WEB.pdf.

 

Rudin, N. & Inman, K. (2012). The discomfort of thought - a discussion with John Butler. The CACNews. 1st Quarter 2012, pp. 8-11.

 

Schneider, P.M., et al. (2006). Editorial on the recommendations of the DNA commission of the ISFG on the interpretation of mixtures. Forensic Science International, 160, 89-89.

 

Schneider, P.M., et al. (2009). The German Stain Commission: recommendations for the interpretation of mixed stains. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 123, 1-5. (originally published in German in 2006 -- Rechtsmedizin 16:401-404).

 

Stringer, P., et al. (2009). Interpretation of DNA mixtures—Australian and New Zealand consensus on principles. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 3, 144-145.

 

SWGDAM (2010). SWGDAM interpretation guidelines for autosomal STR typing by forensic DNA testing laboratories. Available at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/codis/swgdam.pdf.

 

Wickenheiser, R.A. (2006). General guidelines for categorization and interpretation of mixed STR DNA profiles. Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal, 39, 179-216.

Setting Thresholds

Bregu, J., et al. (2013). Analytical thresholds and sensitivity: establishing RFU thresholds for forensic DNA analysis. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 58, 120-129.

 

Currie, L.  (1999). Detection and quantification limits: origin and historical overview.  Analytica Chimica Acta, 391, 127–134.

 

Gilder, J.R., et al. (2007). Run-specific limits of detection and quantitation for STR-based DNA testing. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 52, 97-101.

 

Gill, P., et al. (2009). The low-template-DNA (stochastic) threshold -- its determination relative to risk analysis for national DNA databases. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 3, 104-111.

 

Gill, P. and Buckleton, J. (2010). A universal strategy to interpret DNA profiles that does not require a definition of low-copy-number. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 4, 221-227.

 

Kaiser, H. (1970). Report for analytical chemists: part II. Quantitation in elemental analysis. Analytical Chemistry, 42, 26A-59A.

 

Long, G.L., & Winefordner, J.D. (1983). Limit of detection: a closer look at the IUPAC definition. Analytical Chemistry, 55, 712A-724A.

 

Miller J.C., & Miller J.N. (2005).  Errors in instrumental analysis; regression and correlation in Statistics for Analytical Chemistry, Ellis Horwood and Prentice Hall, pp. 101-137.

 

Mocak, J., Bond, A.M., Mitchell, S., & Scollary, G. (1997). A statistical overview of standard (IUPAC and ACS) and new procedures for determining the limits of detection and quantification: application to voltammetric and stripping techniques. Pure and Applied Chemistry, 69, 297-328.

 

Puch-Solis, R., et al. (2011). Practical determination of the low template DNA threshold. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 5(5), 422-427.

 

Rakay, C.A., et al. (2012). Maximizing allele detection: effects of analytical threshold and DNA levels on rates of allele and locus drop-out. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 6, 723-728.

 

Rubinson, K.A,, & Rubinson, J.F. (2000). Sample size and major, minor, trace, and ultratrace components. Contemporary Instrumental Analysis. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, pp. 150–158.

Stutter Products & Peak Height Ratios

Blackmore, V.L., et al. (2000). Preferential amplification and stutter observed in population database samples using the AmpFlSTR Profiler multiplex system. Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences Journal, 33, 23-32.

 

Bright, J.-A., et al. (2010). Examination of the variability in mixed DNA profile parameters for the Identifiler multiplex. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 4, 111-114.

 

Bright, J.-A., et al. (2011). Determination of the variables affecting mixed MiniFiler™ DNA profiles. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 5(5), 381-385.

 

Brookes, C., Bright, J.A., Harbison, S., Buckleton, J. (2012). Characterising stutter in forensic STR multiplexes. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 6(1), 58-63.

 

Buckleton, J. (2009). Validation issues around DNA typing of low level DNA.  Forensic Science International: Genetics, 3, 255-260.

 

Buse, E.L., et al. (2003). Performance evaluation of two multiplexes used in fluorescent short tandem repeat DNA analysis. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 48, 348-357.

 

Debernardi, A., et al. (2011). One year variability of peak heights, heterozygous balance and inter-locus balance for the DNA positive control of AmpFlSTR Identifiler STR kit. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 5(1), 43-49.

 

Gibb, A.J., et al. (2009). Characterisation of forward stutter in the AmpFlSTR SGM Plus PCR. Science & Justice, 49, 24-31.

 

Gilder, J.R., et al. (2011). Magnitude-dependent variation in peak height balance at heterozygous STR loci. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 125, 87-94.

 

Gill, P., et al. (1997). Development of guidelines to designate alleles using an STR multiplex system. Forensic Science International, 89, 185-197.

 

Gill, P., et al. (1998). Interpretation of simple mixtures when artifacts such as stutters are present—with special reference to multiplex STRs used by the Forensic Science Service. Forensic Science International, 95, 213-224.

 

Hill, C.R., et al. (2011). Concordance and population studies along with stutter and peak height ratio analysis for the PowerPlex^® ESX 17 and ESI 17 Systems. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 5, 269-275.

 

Kelly, H., et al. (2012). Modelling heterozygote balance in forensic DNA profiles. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 6, 729-734.

 

Leclair, B., et al. (2004). Systematic analysis of stutter percentages and allele peak height and peak area ratios at heterozygous STR loci for forensic casework and database samples. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 49, 968-980.

 

Manabe, S., et al. (2013). Mixture interpretation: experimental and simulated reevaluation of qualitative analysis. Legal Medicine, 15, 66-71.

 

Moretti, T.R., et al. (2001). Validation of short tandem repeats (STRs) for forensic usage: performance testing of fluorescent multiplex STR systems and analysis of authentic and simulated forensic samples. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 46, 647-660.

 

Moretti, T.R., et al. (2001). Validation of STR typing by capillary electrophoresis. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 46, 661-676.

 

Mulero, J.J., et al. (2006). Characterization of the N+3 stutter product in the trinucleotide repeat locus DYS392. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 51, 1069-1073.

 

Wallin, J.M., et al. (1998). TWGDAM validation of the AmpFISTR Blue PCR amplification kit for forensic casework analysis. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 43, 854-870.

 

Walsh, P.S., et al. (1996). Sequence analysis and characterization of stutter products at the tetranucleotide repeat locus vWA. Nucleic Acids Research, 24, 2807-2812.

 

Stochastic Effects & Allele Dropout

Balding, D.J., & Buckleton, J. (2009). Interpreting low template DNA profiles. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 4: 1-10.

 

Benschop, C.C.G., et al. (2011).  Low template STR typing: effect of replicate number and consensus method on genotyping reliability and DNA database search results. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 5, 316-328.

 

Bright, J.-A., et al. (2012). A comparison of stochastic variation in mixed and unmixed casework and synthetic samples. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 6(2), 180-184.

 

Bright, J.-A., et al. (2012). Composite profiles in DNA analysis. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 6(3), 317-321.

 

Gill, P., et al. (2005). A graphical simulation model of the entire DNA process associated with the analysis of short tandem repeat loci. Nucleic Acids Research, 33, 632-643.

 

Gill, P., et al. (2008). Interpretation of complex DNA profiles using empirical models and a method to measure their robustness. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 2, 91-103.

 

Gill, P., et al. (2008). Interpretation of complex DNA profiles using Tippett plots. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series, 1, 646-648.

 

Haned, H., et al. (2011). Estimating drop-out probabilities in forensic DNA samples: a simulation approach to evaluate different models.  Forensic Science International: Genetics, 5, 525-531.

 

Kelly, H., et al. (2012). The interpretation of low level DNA mixtures. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 6(2), 191-197.

 

Puch-Solis, R., et al. (2009). Assigning weight of DNA evidence using a continuous model that takes into account stutter and dropout. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series, 2, 460-461.

 

Stenman, J., & Orpana, A. (2001). Accuracy in amplification. Nature Biotechnology, 19, 1011-1012.

 

Taberlet, P., et al. (1996). Reliable genotyping of samples with very low DNA quantities using PCR. Nucleic Acids Research, 24, 3189-3194.

 

Tvedebrink, T., et al. (2008). Amplification of DNA mixtures—missing data approach. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series, 1, 664-666.

 

Tvedebrink, T., et al. (2009). Estimating the probability of allelic drop-out of STR alleles in forensic genetics. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 3, 222-226.

 

Tvedebrink, T., et al. (2012). Statistical model for degraded DNA samples and adjusted probabilities for allelic drop-out. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 6(1), 97-101.

 

Tvedebrink, T., et al. (2012). Allelic drop-out probabilities estimated by logistic regression – further considerations and practical implementation. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 6(2), 263-267.

 

Walsh, P.S., et al. (1992). Preferential PCR amplification of alleles: Mechanisms and solutions. PCR Methods and Applications, 1, 241-250.

 

Weiler, N.E.C., et al. (2012). Extending PCR conditions to reduce drop-out frequencies in low template STR typing including unequal mixtures. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 6(1), 102-107.

Estimating the Number of Contributors

Biedermann, A., et al.. (2012). Inference about the number of contributors to a DNA mixture: comparative analyses of a Bayesian network approach and the maximum allele count method. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 6, 689-696.

 

Brenner, C.H., et al. (1996). Likelihood ratios for mixed stains when the number of donors cannot be agreed. International Journal of Legal Medicine 109, 218-219.

 

Buckleton, J.S., et al. (1998). Setting bounds for the likelihood ratio when multiple hypotheses are postulated. Science & Justice 38, 23-26.

 

Buckleton, J.S., et al. (2007). Towards understanding the effect of uncertainty in the number of contributors to DNA stains. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 1, 20-28.

 

Clayton, T.M., et al. (2004). A genetic basis for anomalous band patterns encountered during DNA STR profiling. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 49, 1207-1214.

 

Egeland, T., et al. (2003). Estimating the number of contributors to a DNA profile. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 117, 271-275.

 

Ge, J., et al. (2011). Comparisons of familial DNA database searching strategies. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 56(6), 1448-1456.

 

Haned, H., et al. (2011). The predictive value of the maximum likelihood estimator of the number of contributors to a DNA mixture. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 5(5), 281-284.

 

Haned, H., et al. (2011). Estimating the number of contributors to forensic DNA mixtures: does maximum likelihood perform better than maximum allele count? Journal of Forensic Sciences, 56(1), 23-28.

 

Lauritzen, S.L., & Mortera, J. (2002). Bounding the number of contributors to mixed DNA stains. Forensic Science International 130, 125-126.

 

Paoletti, D.R., et al. (2005). Empirical analysis of the STR profiles resulting from conceptual mixtures. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 50, 1361-1366.

 

Paoletti, D.R., et al. (2012). Inferring the number of contributors to mixed DNA profiles. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, 9(1), 113-122.

 

Perez, J., et al. (2011). Estimating the number of contributors to two-, three-, and four-person mixtures containing DNA in high template and low template amounts. Croatian Medical Journal, 52(3), 314-326.

 

Presciuttini, S., et al. (2003) Allele sharing in first-degree and unrelated pairs of individuals in the Ge. F.I. AmpFlSTR Profiler Plus database. Forensic Science International, 131, 85-89.

 

Tvedebrink, T., et al. (2012). Identifying contributors of DNA mixtures by means of quantitative information of STR typing. Journal of Computational Biology, 19(7), 887-902.

 

Mixture Ratios

Clayton, T.M., et al. (1998). Analysis and interpretation of mixed forensic stains using DNA STR profiling. Forensic Science International, 91, 55-70.

 

Cowell, R.G., et al. (2007). Identification and separation of DNA mixtures using peak area information. Forensic Science International, 166, 28-34.

 

Cowell, R.G. (2009). Validation of an STR peak area model. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 3(3), 193-199.

 

Evett, I.W., et al. (1998). Taking account of peak areas when interpreting mixed DNA profiles. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 43, 62-69.

 

Frégeau, C.J., et al. (2003). AmpFlSTR Profiler Plus short tandem repeat DNA analysis of casework samples, mixture samples, and nonhuman DNA samples amplified under reduced PCR volume conditions (25 microL). Journal of Forensic Sciences, 48, 1014-1034.

 

Gill, P., et al. (1998). Interpreting simple STR mixtures using allelic peak areas. Forensic Science International, 91, 41-53.

 

Perlin, M.W., & Szabady, B. (2001). Linear mixture analysis: a mathematical approach to resolving mixed DNA samples. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 46, 1372-1378.

 

Tvedebrink, T., et al. (2010). Evaluating the weight of evidence by using quantitative short tandem repeat data in DNA mixtures. Journal of Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), 59(5), 855-874.

 

Wang, T., et al. (2006). Least-squares deconvolution: a framework for interpreting short tandem repeat mixtures. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 51, 1284-1297.

Statistical Approaches

Balding, D.J. (2005) Weight-of-evidence for Forensic DNA Profiles. John Wiley & Sons; see mixture section on pp. 101-110.

 

Chung, Y.K., et al. (2010). Evaluation of DNA mixtures from database search. Biometrics, 66, 233-238.

 

Chung, Y.K., & Fung, W.K. (2011). The evidentiary values of “cold hits” in a DNA database search on two-person mixture. Science & Justice, 51(1), 10-15.

 

Cowell, R.G., et al. (2007). A gamma model for DNA mixture analyses. Bayesian Analysis, 2(2), 333-348.

 

Curran, J.M., et al. (1999). Interpreting DNA mixtures in structured populations. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 44, 987-995.

 

Curran, J.M., & Buckleton, J. (2010). Inclusion probabilities and dropout. Journal of Forensic Science, 55, 1171-1173.

 

Devlin, B. (1993). Forensic inference from genetic markers. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 2, 241–262.

 

Evett, I.W., et al. (1991). A guide to interpreting single locus profiles of DNA mixtures in forensic cases. Journal of Forensic Science Society, 31, 41-47.

 

Evett, I.W., & Weir, B.S. (1998). Interpreting DNA Evidence: Statistical Genetics for Forensic Scientists. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.

 

Fung, W.K., & Hu, Y.-Q. (2001). The evaluation of mixed stains from different ethnic origins: general result and common cases. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 115, 48-53.

 

Fung, W.K., & Hu, Y.-Q. (2002). The statistical evaluation of DNA mixtures with contributors from different ethnic groups. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 116, 79-86.

 

Fung, W.K., & Hu, Y.-Q. (2002). Evaluating mixed stains with contributors of different ethnic groups under the NRC-II Recommendation 4.1. Statistics in Medicine, 21, 3583-3593.

 

Fung, W.K., & Hu, Y.-Q. (2008). Statistical DNA Forensics: Theory, Methods and Computation. Wiley: Hoboken, NJ.

 

Hu, Y.-Q., & Fung, W.K. (2003). Interpreting DNA mixtures with the presence of relatives. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 117, 39-45.

 

Hu, Y.-Q., & Fung, W.K. (2003). Evaluating forensic DNA mixtures with contributors of different structured ethnic origins: a computer software. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 117, 248-249.

 

Hu, Y.-Q., & Fung, W.K. (2005). Evaluation of DNA mixtures involving two pairs of relatives. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 119(5), 251-259.

 

Ladd, C., et al. (2001). Interpretation of complex forensic DNA mixtures. Croatian Medical Journal, 42, 244-246.

 

Pascali, V.L., & Merigioli, S. (2012). Joint Bayesian analysis of forensic mixtures. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 6, 735-748.

 

Perlin, M.W. (2010). Explaining the likelihood ratio in DNA mixture interpretation. Proceedings of the 21^st International Symposium on Human Identification (Promega Corporation). Available at http://www.cybgen.com/information/publication/page.shtml.

 

Puch-Solis, R., et al. (2010). Calculating likelihood ratios for a mixed DNA profile when a contribution from a genetic relative of a suspect is proposed. Science & Justice, 50(4), 205-209.

 

van Niewerburgh, F., et al. (2009). Impact of allelic dropout on evidential value of forensic DNA profiles using RMNE. Bioinformatics 25, 225-229.

 

van Nieuwerburgh, F., et al. (2009). RMNE probability of forensic DNA profiles with allelic drop-out. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series, 2, 462-463.

 

Weir, B.S., et al. (1997). Interpreting DNA mixtures. Journal of Forensic Sciences 42, 213-222.

 

Low Template DNA Mixtures

Bekaert, B., et al. (2012). Automating a combined composite-consensus method to generate DNA profiles from low and high template mixture samples. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 6(5), 588-593.

 

Benschop, C.C.G., et al. (2012). Assessment of mock cases involving complex low template DNA mixtures: a descriptive study. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 6, 697-707.

 

Benschop, C.C.G., et al. (2013). Consensus and pool profiles to assist in the analysis and interpretation of complex low template DNA mixtures. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 127, 11-23.

 

Budimlija, Z.M., & Caragine, T.A. (2012). Interpretation guidelines for multilocus STR forensic profiles from low template DNA samples. DNA Electrophoresis Protocols for Forensic Genetics (Methods in Molecular Biology, volume 830), pp. 199-211.

 

Caragine, T., et al. (2009). Validation of testing and interpretation protocols for low template DNA samples using AmpFlSTR Identifiler. Croatian Medical Journal, 50(3), 250-267.

 

Haned, H., et al. (2012). Exploratory data analysis for the interpretation of low template DNA mixtures. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 6, 762-774.

 

Mitchell, A.A., et al. (2011). Likelihood ratio statistics for DNA mixtures allowing for drop-out and drop-in. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series, 3, e240-e241.

 

Mitchell, A.A., et al. (2012). Validation of a DNA mixture statistics tool incorporating allelic drop-out and drop-in. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 6, 749-761.

 

Pfeifer, C., et al. (2012). Comparison of different interpretation strategies for low template DNA mixtures. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 6, 716-722.

 

Westen, A.A., et al. (2012). Assessment of the stochastic threshold, back- and forward stutter filters and low template techniques for NGM. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 6, 708-715.

Separating Cells to Avoid Mixtures

Li, C.-X., et al. (2011). New cell separation technique for the isolation and analysis of cells from biological mixtures in forensic caseworks. Croatian Medical Journal, 52(3), 293-298.

 

Rothe, J., et al. (2011). Individual specific extraction of DNA from male mixtures--First evaluation studies. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 5(2), 117-121.

 

Schneider, H., et al. (2011). Hot flakes in cold cases. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 125, 543-548.

Software

Bill, M., et al. (2005). PENDULUM-a guideline-based approach to the interpretation of STR mixtures. Forensic Science International, 148, 181-189.

 

Haned, H. (2011). Forensim: an open-source initiative for the evaluation of statistical methods in forensic genetics. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 5, 265-268.

 

Haned, H., & Gill, P. (2011). Analysis of complex DNA mixtures using the Forensim package. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series, 3, e79-e80.

 

Hansson, O., & Gill, P. (2011). Evaluation of GeneMapper ID-X mixture analysis tool. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series, 3, e11-e12.

 

Mortera, J., et al. (2003). Probabilistic expert system for DNA mixture profiling. Theoretical and Population Biology, 63, 191-205.

 

Oldroyd, N., & Shade, L.L. (2008) Expert assistant software enables forensic DNA analysts to confidently process more samples. Forensic Magazine Dec 2008/Jan 2009, 25-28; available at http://www.forensicmag.com/articles.asp?pid=240.

 

Perlin, M.W. (2006). Scientific validation of mixture interpretation methods. Proceedings of Promega’s Seventeenth International Symposium on Human Identification. Available at http://www.promega.com/geneticidproc/ussymp17proc/oralpresentations/Perlin.pdf.

 

Probabilistic Genotyping Approach

Ballantyne, J., Hanson, E.K., Perlin, M.W. (2013). DNA mixture genotyping by probabilistic computer interpretation of binomially-sampled laser captured cell populations: combining quantitative data for greater identification information. Science & Justice, 53, 103-114.

 

Cowell, R.G., et al. (2008). Probabilistic modelling for DNA mixture analysis. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series, 1, 640-642.

 

Cowell, R.G., et al. (2011). Probabilistic expert systems for handling artifacts in complex DNA mixtures. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 5(3), 202-209.

 

Curran, J.M. (2008). A MCMC method for resolving two person mixtures. Science & Justice, 48, 168-177.

 

Gill, P., & Buckleton, J. (2010). Commentary on: Budowle B, Onorato AJ, Callaghan TF, Della Manna A, Gross AM, Guerrieri RA, Luttman JC, McClure DL. Mixture interpretation: defining the relevant features for guidelines for the assessment of mixed DNA profiles in forensic casework. J Forensic Sci 2009;54(4):810-21. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 55(1), 265-268.

 

Gill, P., et al. (2012). DNA Commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the evaluation of STR typing results that may include drop-out and/or drop-in using probabilistic methods. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 6, 679-688.

 

Perlin, M.W. (2006). Scientific validation of mixture interpretation methods. Proceedings of the 17^th International Symposium on Human Identification (Promega Corporation). Available at http://www.cybgen.com/information/publication/page.shtml.

 

Perlin, M.W., & Sinelnikov, A. (2009). An information gap in DNA evidence interpretation. PloS ONE, 4(12), e8327.

 

Perlin, M.W., et al. (2009). Match likelihood ratio for uncertain genotypes. Law, Probability and Risk, 8, 289-302.

 

Perlin, M.W., et al. (2011). Validating TrueAllele DNA mixture interpretation. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 56(6), 1430-1447.

 

Perlin, M.W. (2012). Easy reporting of hard DNA: computer comfort in the courtroom. Forensic Magazine, 9(4), 32-37. Available at http://www.cybgen.com/information/publication/page.shtml.

 

Perlin, M.W., et al. (2013). New York State TrueAllele® casework validation study. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 58(6), 1458-1466. Available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1556-4029.12223/full.

Perlin, M.W., Dormer, K., Hornyak, J., Schiermeier-Wood, L., Greenspoon, S. (2014). TrueAllele Casework on Virginia DNA Mixture Evidence: Computer and Manual Interpretation in 72 Reported Criminal Cases. PLoS ONE 9(3): e92837. Available at http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0092837.

 

General Information on Mixtures

Clayton, T., & Buckleton, J. (2005). Mixtures. Chapter 7 in Forensic DNA Evidence Interpretation (Eds.: Buckleton, J., Triggs, C.M., Walsh, S.J.), CRC Press, pp. 217-274.

 

Dror, I.E., & Hampikian, G. (2011). Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Science & Justice, 51(4), 204-208.

 

Kamodyova, N., et al. (2013). Prevalance and persistence of male DNA identified in mixed saliva samples after intense kissing. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 7, 124-128.

 

Nurit, B., et al. (2011). Evaluating the prevalence of DNA mixtures found in fingernail samples from victims and suspects in homicide cases. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 5, 532-537.

 

Tomsey, C.S., et al. (2001). Case work guidelines and interpretation of short tandem repeat complex mixture analysis. Croatian Medical Journal, 42, 276-280.

 

Torres, Y., et al. (2003). DNA mixtures in forensic casework: a 4-year retrospective study. Forensic Science International, 134, 180-186.

 

Wetton, J.H., et al. (2011). Analysis and interpretation of mixed profiles generated by 34 cycle SGM Plus amplification. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 5(5), 376-380.

[Return to Home Page]

Last Updated: 08/04/2016