Evaluating Forensic DNA Evidence

Evaluating forensic DNA
evidence
Dan E. Krane, Wright State University, Dayton, OH
William C. Thompson, University of California, Irvine
Forensic Bioinformatics
(www.bioforensics.com)
The science of DNA profiling is
sound.
But, not all of DNA profiling is

science.
Three generations of DNA testing
RFLP DQ-alpha Automated STR

AUTORAD TEST STRIP ELECTROPHEROGRAM
Allele = BAND Allele = BLUE DOT Allele = PEAK
Two relatively new DNA tests
Mitochondrial DNA
mtDNA sequence Y-STRs
Sensitive but not Useful with mixtures
discriminating Paternally inherited
DNA content of biological samples:
Type of sample Amount of DNA
Blood 30,000 ng/mL
stain 1 cm2 in area 200 ng
stain 1 mm2 in area 2 ng
Semen 250,000 ng/mL
Postcoital vaginal swab 0 - 3,000 ng
Hair
plucked 1 - 750 ng/hair
shed 1 - 12 ng/hair
Saliva 5,000 ng/mL
Urine 1 - 20 ng/mL
Automated STR Test
Crime Scene Samples &
Reference Samples
• Extract and purify DNA
Differential extraction in sex

assault cases separates out
DNA from sperm cells
Extract and Purify DNA
• Reactions are performed in Eppendorf tubes. Typical volumes

are measured in microliters (one millionth of a liter).
PCR Amplification
• DNA regions flanked by

primers are amplified
Groups of amplified STR products are

labeled with different colored dyes
(blue, green, yellow)
The ABI 310 Genetic Analyzer:
SIZE, COLOR & AMOUNT
ABI 310 Genetic Analyzer:
Capillary Electrophoresis
•Amplified STR DNA
injected onto column
•Electric current
applied
•DNA pulled towards
the positive electrode
•DNA separated out by
size:
– Large STRs travel Detector
slower Window
– Small STRs travel
faster
•Color of STR detected
and recorded as it
passes the detector
Profiler Plus: Raw data
Statistical estimates: the product rule
0.222 x 0.222 x 2
= 0.1
Statistical estimates: the product rule
1 in 10 x 1 in 111 x 1 in 20
= 0.1
1 in 22,200
1 in 100 x 1 in 14 x 1 in 81
1 in 113,400
1 in 116 x 1 in 17 x 1 in 16
1 in 31,552
1 in 79,531,528,960,000,000
1 in 80 quadrillion
What more is there to say after you
have said: “The chance of a
coincidental match is one in 80
quadrillion?”
What more is there to say after you
have said: “The chance of a
coincidental match is one in 80
quadrillion?”
• Two samples really do have the

same source
• Samples match coincidentally
• An error has occurred
What might go wrong?
• Biased or mistaken interpretation of test

results
• Exaggerated or misleading statistics
• Errors in processing, handling or
labeling of samples
• Incorrect assumptions about a sample’s
source
• Inadvertant transfer
Fudge factors and net widening
• Test results can be ambiguous

• Standards for interpretation can be
vague and flexible
• Hence, multiple interpretations are
possible
• The range of possible matches is often
not reflected in match statistics
Opportunities for subjective
interpretation?
Can “Tom” be excluded?

Suspect D3 vWA FGA
Tom 17, 17 15, 17 25, 25
No -- the additional alleles at D3 and FGA

are “technical artifacts.”
interpretation?
Can “Dick” be excluded?

Suspect D3 vWA FGA
Tom 17, 17 15, 17 25, 25
Dick 12, 17 15, 17 20, 25
No -- stochastic effects explain peak height

disparity in D3; blob in FGA masks 20 allele.
interpretation?
Can “Harry” be excluded?

Suspect D3 vWA FGA
Tom 17, 17 15, 17 25, 25
Dick 12, 17 15, 17 20, 25
Harry 14, 17 15, 17 20, 25
No -- the 14 allele at D3 may be missing due to

“allelic drop out”; FGA blob masks the 20 allele.
interpretation?
Can “Sally” be excluded?

Suspect D3 vWA FGA
Tom 17, 17 15, 17 25, 25
Dick 12, 17 15, 17 20, 25
Harry 14, 17 15, 17 20, 25
Sally 12, 17 15, 15 20, 22
No -- there must be a second contributor;
degradation explains the “missing” FGA allele.
What might go wrong?
• Biased or mistaken interpretation of test

results
• Exaggerated or misleading statistics
• Errors in processing, handling or
labeling of samples
• Incorrect assumptions about a sample’s
source
• Inadvertant transfer
Documenting errors:
DNA Advisory Board Quality Assurance Standards
for Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories, Standard
14
[Forensic DNA laboratories must] “follow

procedures for corrective action whenever
proficiency testing discrepancies and/or
casework errors are detected” [and] “shall
maintain documentation for the corrective
action.”
Documenting errors
Cross contamination:
Documenting errors
Positive result in negative control:

Documenting errors
Positive result in negative control, due to

tube swap:
Documenting errors
Analyst contamination:
Documenting errors
Separate samples combined in one tube . . . .
Documenting errors
Separate samples combined in one tube . . . .
. . . . leading to corrective action:

Documenting errors
Suspect doesn’t match himself . . . .
. . . . but then, staff is “‘always’ getting

people’s names wrong”:
Victorian Coroner’s inquest into the
death of Jaidyn Leskie
• Toddler disappears in bizarre

circumstances: found dead
six months later
• Mother’s boy friend is tried
and acquitted.
• Unknown female profile on
clothing.
• Cold hit to a rape victim.
• RMP: 1 in 227 million.
• Lab claims “adventitious
match.”
Victorian Coroner’s inquest into the
death of Jaidyn Leskie
• Condom with rape victim’s

DNA was processed in the
same lab 1 or 2 days prior to
Leskie samples.
• Additional tests find matches
at 5 to 7 more loci.
• Review of electronic data
reveals low level
contributions at even more
loci.
• Degradation study further
suggests contimation.
Degradation
The Leskie Inquest
• Undegraded samples can

have “ski-slopes” too.
• How negative does a slope
have to be to be an indication
of degradation?
• Experience, training and
expertise.
• Positive controls should not
be degraded.
Degradation
The Leskie Inquest
• DNA profiles in a rape and a

murder investigation match.
• Everyone agrees that the
murder samples are
degraded.
• If the rape sample is
degraded, it could have
contaminated the murder
samples.
• Is the rape sample
degraded?
Degradation
The Leskie Inquest
Sources of ambiguity in DNA testing
results
• Degradation, inhibition
• Mixtures: deconvolution and relatives
• Background noise
• Stutter (n+4)
• Pull-up
• Spikes and blobs
Mixed DNA samples
How many contributors to a mixture?
mixture if
analysts can discard a locus?
Maximum # of
alleles observed in a # of occurrences Percent of cases
3 person mixture
2 0 0.00
3 8,151
310 0.02
0.00
4 11,526,219
2,498,139 25.53
5.53
5 32,078,976
29,938,777 71.07
66.32
6 1,526,550
12,702,670 3.38
28.14
There are 45,139,896 possible different 3-way mixtures of the 648

individuals in the MN BCI database (accepted for publication in JFS).
Accounting for relatives
20%
18%
16%
14%
12%
Randomized Individuals
10% Simulated Cousins
Simulated Siblings
8%
Percent 6%
of total (%)
4%
2%
0%
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Number of pairwise shared alleles

interpretation?
Spikes and blobs
blob
Peak Area
Peak area
spike
Peak height
Peak Height
Blob:
Blob: Peak
Peak Area
Area // Peak
Peak Height
Height > 10
10 ++
Spike:
Spike: Peak
Peak Area
Area // Peak
Peak Height
Height << 4.5
4.5 --
The science of DNA profiling is
sound.
But, not all of DNA profiling is

science.
This is especially true in situations

involving: mixtures, relatives,
degradation, and small sample size.
Resources
• Internet
– Forensic Bioinformatics Website: http://www.bioforensics.com/
– Applied Biosystems Website: http://www.appliedbiosystems.com/
(see human identity and forensics)
– STR base: http://www.cstl.nist.gov/biotech/strbase/ (very useful)
• Books
– ‘Forensic DNA Typing’ by John M. Butler (Academic Press)
• Scientists
– Larry Mueller (UC Irvine)
– Simon Ford (Lexigen, Inc. San Francisco, CA)
– William Shields (SUNY, Syracuse, NY)
– Mike Raymer and Travis Doom (Wright State, Dayton, OH) Marc
Taylor (Technical Associates, Ventura, CA)
– Keith Inman (Forensic Analytical, Haywood, CA)
• Testing laboratories
– Technical Associates (Ventura, CA)
– Indiana State Police (Indianapolis, IN)
• Other resources
– Forensic Bioinformatics (Dayton, OH)

Evaluating Forensic DNA Evidence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluating Forensic DNA Evidence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluating Forensic DNA Evidence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluating forensic DNA

Dan E. Krane, Wright State University, Dayton, OH

William C. Thompson, University of California, Irvine

But, not all of DNA profiling is

RFLP DQ-alpha Automated STR

• Extract and purify DNA

Differential extraction in sex

• Reactions are performed in Eppendorf tubes. Typical volumes

• DNA regions flanked by

Groups of amplified STR products are

• Two samples really do have the

• Biased or mistaken interpretation of test

• Test results can be ambiguous

Can “Tom” be excluded?

No -- the additional alleles at D3 and FGA

Can “Dick” be excluded?

No -- stochastic effects explain peak height

Can “Harry” be excluded?

No -- the 14 allele at D3 may be missing due to

Can “Sally” be excluded?

• Biased or mistaken interpretation of test

[Forensic DNA laboratories must] “follow

Positive result in negative control:

Positive result in negative control, due to

. . . . leading to corrective action:

. . . . but then, staff is “‘always’ getting

• Toddler disappears in bizarre

• Condom with rape victim’s

• Undegraded samples can

• DNA profiles in a rape and a

There are 45,139,896 possible different 3-way mixtures of the 648

10% Simulated Cousins

Number of pairwise shared alleles

But, not all of DNA profiling is

This is especially true in situations

You might also like