Does the use of probabilistic genotyping change the way we should view sub-threshold data?

Exploring likelihood ratios assigned for siblings of the true mixture contributor as an alternate contributor

Relatives tend to have more DNA in common than unrelated people. The closer the biological relationship, the higher the chance of alleles being identical by descent between the individuals. Therefore, when considering a mixed DNA profile, close relatives of the true contributor may not always be excluded as a possible contributor to a mixture due to allele sharing. In these situations, it might be more appropriate under the alternate proposition to consider that the DNA could have originated from a relative of the person of interest rather than an unrelated individual. The probabilistic genotyping software STRmix™ automatically provides LRs considering close biological relatives as alternate sources of the DNA. In this paper, we investigate the support for siblings of the true contributor to a mixture (who are not present in the mixture themselves). We interpret the mixtures and assign LRs using STRmix™ and investigate whether the resulting LRs could be used to indicate whether the true contributor could be a sibling of the POI. Most siblings will have one or more alleles that are not observed in the mixture profile. Support for siblings to have contributed can only occur when allelic dropout is a possibility at the loci where the siblings have alleles that are not observed in the profile. In these data, that was only observed in components with assigned template of 588 rfu or less.

A Review of Probabilistic Genotyping Systems: EuroForMix, DNAStatistX and STRmix™

Probabilistic genotyping has become widespread. EuroForMix and DNAStatistX are both based upon maximum likelihood estimation using a γ model, whereas STRmix™ is a Bayesian approach that specifies prior distributions on the unknown model parameters. A general overview is provided of the historical development of probabilistic genotyping. Some general principles of interpretation are described, including: the application to investigative vs. evaluative reporting; detection of contamination events; inter and intra laboratory studies; numbers of contributors; proposition setting and validation of software and its performance. This is followed by details of the evolution, utility, practice and adoption of the software discussed.