, Volume 96, Issue 1-2, pp 3-12

A method for quantifying differentiation between populations at multi-allelic loci and its implications for investigating identity and paternity

Rent the article at a discount

Rent now

* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.

Get Access

Abstract

A method is proposed for allowing for the effects of population differentiation, and other factors, in forensic inference based on DNA profiles. Much current forensic practice ignores, for example, the effects of coancestry and inappropriate databases and is consequently systematically biased against defendants. Problems with the ‘product rule’ for forensic identification have been highlighted by several authors, but important aspects of the problems are not widely appreciated. This arises in part because the match probability has often been confused with the relative frequency of the profile. Further, the analogous problems in paternity cases have received little attention. The proposed method is derived under general assumptions about the underlying population genetic processes. Probabilities relevant to forensic inference are expressed in terms of a single parameter whose values can be chosen to reflect the specific circumstances. The method is currently used in some UK courts and has important advantages over the ‘Ceiling Principle’ method, which has been criticized on a number of grounds.

Editor's comments
The authors' work offers a sound approach to accommodating the effects of population structure, based on use of Wright'sF ST . Their equations 1 and 2 are very convenient, and are good approximations to the exact results given by Weir (1994). As they point out, good estimates ofF ST are needed. The comments about the ‘generally mixed’ results of independence tests may be met, in part, by the paper of Maiste and Weir in this volume. The authors cite Kraneet al. (1992) but had not seen the subsequent rebuttal by Budowleet al. (1994). The work of Wallet al. (1993) contained errors, as noted in Greenhalghet al. (1994).
An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10709-007-9181-2.