2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2012.06.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of different interpretation strategies for low template DNA mixtures

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
19
0
7

Year Published

2013
2013
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
19
0
7
Order By: Relevance
“…The four allele drop-ins were reexamined, but it was not possible to deduce whether the drop-ins were caused by a contamination or unusual high background noise in the electropherograms. The low drop-in rate of the sensitized SNPforID assay is in sharp contrast to the sensitized STR assays, where the drop-in rate may be 100 times higher [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. Allele drop-ins are very problematic, because they may lead to false inclusions as well as false exclusions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The four allele drop-ins were reexamined, but it was not possible to deduce whether the drop-ins were caused by a contamination or unusual high background noise in the electropherograms. The low drop-in rate of the sensitized SNPforID assay is in sharp contrast to the sensitized STR assays, where the drop-in rate may be 100 times higher [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. Allele drop-ins are very problematic, because they may lead to false inclusions as well as false exclusions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This indicated that the drop-ins were generated by the PCR and were not a result of contamination. By typing the samples two or more times and interpreting the combined results by various consensus models, the number of drop-outs and drop-ins in the generated sample profile were reduced, but not eliminated [10,12,15,16,18]. As a consequence, a ''statistical'' approach was developed to compensate for the stochastic phenomena of LtDNA analyses [2].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two different statistical models were used aiming to obtain reliable results from the analysis of the Low Template-DNA (LT-DNA) from the swab samples: the "classical" biological model (Caragine et al 2009, Benschop et al 2011, Pfeifer et al 2012 and the statistical or probabilistic model (Curran et al 2005, Gill et al 2008, Gill and Buckleton 2009, Gill and Haned 2013.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is well known that resolution of mixed samples after a-STR analysis is one of the main challenges which complicate routine and automated analysis of biological traces in forensics [11]. The main problems associated with mixtures are: the low amount of isolated DNA from forensic traces; inappropriate quality of isolated DNA; unknown number of contributors in the sample; contributor(s)' genotype composition; availability of reference samples; and proportion of minor contributor DNA [12][13][14][15][16]. In our study, fresh salivary or buccal swab samples of known contributors were analysed, thus some of the issues mentioned above were not applicable.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%