Application of a probabilistic genotyping software to MPS mixture STR data is supported by similar trends in LRs compared with CE data. (May 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Benschop, Corina C.G.; van der Gaag, Kristiaan J.; de Vreede, Jennifer; Backx, Anouk J.; de Leeuw, Rick H.; Zuñiga, Sofia; Hoogenboom, Jerry; de Knijff, Peter; Sijen, Titia
• Is Part Of: Forensic science international. Volume 52(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-05
• Subjects: Mixed STR profiles -- EuroForMix -- Likelihood ratio -- Capillary electrophoresis -- Massively parallel sequencing; Forensic genetics -- Periodicals; Génétique légale -- Périodiques; Forensic genetics; Electronic journals; Periodicals; 614.1
• DOI: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2021.102489
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1872-4973

Abstract

Abstract: The interpretation of short tandem repeat (STR) profiles can be challenging when, for example, alleles are masked due to allele sharing among contributors and/or when they are subject to drop-out, for instance from sample degradation. Mixture interpretation can be improved by increasing the number of STRs and/or loci with a higher discriminatory power. Both capillary electrophoresis (CE, 6-dye) and massively parallel sequencing (MPS) provide a platform for analysing relatively large numbers of autosomal STRs. In addition, MPS enables distinguishing between sequence variants, resulting in enlarged discriminatory power. Also, MPS allows for small amplicon sizes for all loci as spacing is not an issue, which is beneficial with degraded DNA. Altogether, MPS has the potential to increase the weights of evidence for true contributors to (complex) DNA profiles. In this study, likelihood ratio (LR) calculations were performed using STR profiles obtained with two different MPS systems and analysed using different settings: 1) MPS PowerSeq™ Auto System profiles analysed using FDSTools equipped with optimized settings such as noise correction, 2) ForenSeq™ DNA Signature Prep Kit profiles analysed using the default settings in the Universal Analysis Software (UAS), and 3) ForenSeq™ DNA Signature Prep Kit profiles analysed using FDSTools empirically adapted to cope with one-directional reads and provisional, basic settings. The LR calculations used genotyping data for two- to four-person mixtures varying for mixture proportion, level of drop-out and allele sharing and were generated with the continuous model EuroForMix. The LR results for the over 2000 sets of propositions were affected by the variation for the number of markers and analysis settings used in the three approaches. Nevertheless, trends for true and non-contributors, effects of replicates, assigned number of contributors, and model validation results were comparable for the three MPS approaches and alike the trends known for CE data. Based on this analogy, we regard the probabilistic interpretation of MPS STR data fit for forensic DNA casework. In addition, guidelines were derived on when to apply LR calculations to MPS autosomal STR data and report the corresponding results. Highlights: MPS can reveal more genetic information than CE. Detection of this information depends on kit characteristics and analysis settings. Trends for LRs were similar between MPS and CE approaches. Guidelines for LR calculations on MPS data in forensic casework are suggested.