Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of genotyping and weight of evidence results when applying different genotyping strategies on samples from a DNA transfer experiment

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Legal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, we assessed to what extent data on the subject of TPPR (transfer, persistence, prevalence, recovery) that are obtained through an older STR typing kit can be used in an activity-level evaluation for a case profiled with a more modern STR kit. Newer kits generally hold more loci and may show higher sensitivity especially when reduced reaction volumes are used, and this could increase the evidential value at the source level. On the other hand, the increased genotyping information may invoke a higher number of contributors in the weight of evidence calculations, which could affect the evidential values as well. An activity scenario well explored in earlier studies [1,2] was redone using volunteers with known DNA profiles. DNA extracts were analyzed with three different approaches, namely using the optimal DNA input for (1) an older and (2) a newer STR typing system, and (3) using a standard, volume-based input combined with replicate PCR analysis with only the newer STR kit. The genotyping results were analyzed for various aspects such as percentage detected alleles and relative peak height contribution for background and the contributors known to be involved in the activity. Next, source-level LRs were calculated and the same trends were observed with regard to inclusionary and exclusionary LRs for persons who had or had not been in direct contact with the sampled areas. We subsequently assessed the impact on the outcome of the activity-level evaluation in an exemplary case by applying the assigned probabilities to a Bayesian network. We infer that data from different STR kits can be combined in the activity-level evaluations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Test material is no longer available. Data beyond the details presented in the supplementary data and the Bayesian network in Hugin are sharable upon request and approval of release.

References

  1. Gill P, Hicks T, Butler JM, Connolly E, Gusmão L, Kokshoorn B, Schneider PM (2018) DNA commission of the International society for forensic genetics: assessing the value of forensic biological evidence-Guidelines highlighting the importance of propositions: part i: evaluation of DNA profiling comparisons given (sub-) source propositions. Forensic Sci Int: Genet 36:189–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Gill P, Hicks T, Butler JM, Connolly E, Gusmão L, Kokshoorn B, Schneider PM (2020) DNA commission of the International society for forensic genetics: assessing the value of forensic biological evidence-Guidelines highlighting the importance of propositions, part II: evaluation of biological traces considering activity level propositions. Forensic Sci Int: Genet 44:102186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Gill P, Benschop C, Buckleton J, Bleka Ø, Taylor D (2021) A review of probabilistic genotyping systems: EuroForMix DNAStatistX and STRmix™. Genes 12(10):1559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. van Oorschot RA, Meakin GE, Kokshoorn B, Goray M, Szkuta B (2021) DNA transfer in forensic science: recent progress towards meeting challenges. Genes 12(11):1766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gosch A, Courts C (2019) On DNA transfer: the lack and difficulty of systematic research and how to do it better. Forensic Sci Int: Genet 40:24–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Buckingham AK, Harvey ML, van Oorschot RA (2016) The origin of unknown source DNA from touched objects. Forensic Sci Int: Genet 25:26–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Meakin GE, Kokshoorn B, van Oorschot RA, Szkuta B (2021) Evaluating forensic DNA evidence: connecting the dots. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Forensic Sci 3(4):e1404

    Google Scholar 

  8. Steensma K, Ansell R, Clarisse L, Connolly E, Kloosterman AD, McKenna LG, Kokshoorn B (2017) An inter-laboratory comparison study on transfer persistence and recovery of DNA from cable ties. Forensic Sci Int: Genet 31:95–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Goray M, Kokshoorn B, Steensma K, Szkuta B, van Oorschot RA (2020) DNA detection of a temporary and original user of an office space. Forensic Sci Int: Genet 44:102203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Szkuta B, Ansell R, Boiso L, Connolly E, Kloosterman AD, Kokshoorn B, van Oorschot RA (2020) DNA transfer to worn upper garments during different activities and contacts: an inter-laboratory study. Forensic Sci Int: Genet 46:102268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. van den Berge M, Ozcanhan G, Zijlstra S, Lindenbergh A, Sijen T (2016) Prevalence of human cell material: DNA and RNA profiling of public and private objects and after activity scenarios. Forensic Sci Int: Genet 21:81–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. van den Berge M, van de Merwe L, Sijen T (2017) DNA transfer and cell type inference to assist activity level reporting: Post-activity background samples as a control in dragging scenario. Forensic Sci Int: Genet Suppl Ser 6:e591–e592

    Google Scholar 

  13. Benschop CC, Hoogenboom J, Hovers P, Slagter M, Kruise D, Parag R, van Marion V (2019) DNAxs/DNAStatistX: Development and validation of a software suite for the data management and probabilistic interpretation of DNA profiles. Forensic Sci Int: Genet 42:81–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bhoelai B, Beemster F, Sijen T (2013) Revision of the tape used in a tape-lift protocol for DNA recovery. Forensic Sci Int: Genet Suppl Ser 4(1):e270–e271

    Google Scholar 

  15. Nicklas JA, Buel E (2003) Development of an Alu-based real-time PCR method for quantitation of human DNA in forensic samples. J For Sci 48(5):936–944

    Google Scholar 

  16. Nicklas JA, Buel E (2006) Simultaneous determination of total human and male DNA using a duplex real-time PCR assay. J For Sci 51(5):1005–1015

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lindenbergh A, de Pagter M, Ramdayal G, Visser M, Zubakov D, Kayser M, Sijen T (2012) A multiplex (m) RNA-profiling system for the forensic identification of body fluids and contact traces. Forensic Sci Int: Genet 6(5):565–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Duijs F, van de Merwe L, Sijen T, Benschop CC (2018) Low-template methods yield limited extra information for PowerPlex® Fusion 6C profiling. Legal Med 33:62–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bleka Ø, Storvik G, Gill P (2016) EuroForMix: an open source software based on a continuous model to evaluate STR DNA profiles from a mixture of contributors with artefacts. Forensic Sci Int: Genet 21:35–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bouwman I, Hoogenboom J, Sijen T, Benschop CC (2022) Performing LR calculations when loci are missing between reference and trace DNA profiles. Forensic Sci Int: Reports 5:100268

    Google Scholar 

  21. Tay JW, Murakami JA, Cooper PL, Rye MS (2019) Sensitivity and baseline noise of three new generation forensic autosomal STR kits: PowerPlex® Fusion VeriFilerTM Plus and Investigator® 24plex QS. Forensic Sci Int: Reports 1:100049

    Google Scholar 

  22. Parys-Proszek A, Wróbel M, Marcińska M, Kupiec T (2018) Dual amplification strategy for improved efficiency of forensic DNA analysis using NGM Detect™ NGM™ or Globalfiler™ kits. Forensic Sci Int: Genet 35:46–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Oldoni F, Podini D (2019) Forensic molecular biomarkers for mixture analysis. Forensic Sci Int: Genet 41:107–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Taylor D, Biedermann A, Hicks T, Champod C (2018) A template for constructing Bayesian networks in forensic biology cases when considering activity level propositions. Forensic Sci Int: Genet 33:136–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Benschop CC, Hoogenboom J, Bargeman F, Hovers P, Slagter M, van der Linden J, Sijen T (2020) Multi-laboratory validation of DNAxs including the statistical library DNAStatistX. Forensic Sci Int: Genet 49:102390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Westen AA, Kraaijenbrink T, de Medina EAR, Harteveld J, Willemse P, Zuniga SB, de Knijff P (2014) Comparing six commercial autosomal STR kits in a large Dutch population sample. Forensic Sci Int: Genet 10:55–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Samie L, Hicks T, Castella V, Taroni F (2016) Stabbing simulations and DNA transfer. Forensic Sci Int: Genet 22:73–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Steensma K, Ansell R, Clarisse L, Connolly E, Kloosterman AD, McKenna LG, Kokshoorn B (2017) An inter-laboratory comparison study on transfer persistence and recovery of DNA from cable ties. Forensic Sci Int: Genet 31:95–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ramos P, Handt O, Taylor D (2020) Investigating the position and level of DNA transfer to undergarments during digital sexual assault. Forensic Sci Int: Genet 47:102316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. De Wolff TR, Aarts LHJ, van den Berge M, Boyko T, van Oorschot RAH, Zuidberg M, Kokshoorn B (2021) Prevalence of DNA of regular occupants in vehicles. Forensic Sci Int 320:110713

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all volunteers for their participation. Margreet van den Berge, Corina Benschop, and Klaas Slooten are thanked for helpful discussions and/or critically reading the manuscript. Jerry Hoogenboom is thanked for programming automized scripts to perform LR calculations.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Biological Traces, Netherlands Forensic Institute, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Francisca E. Duijs, Erin Meijers, Bas Kokshoorn & Titia Sijen

  2. Faculty of Technology, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Bas Kokshoorn

  3. University of Amsterdam, Swammerdam Institute for Life Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Titia Sijen

Authors
  1. Francisca E. Duijs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erin Meijers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bas Kokshoorn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Titia Sijen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Francisca Duijs: investigation, formal analysis, visualization, writing—original draft preparation, and supervision. Erin Meijers: investigation. Bas Kokshoorn: writing—reviewing and editing. Titia Sijen: conceptualization and writing—reviewing and editing. The authors read anda approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Titia Sijen.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

Informed consent

Volunteers signed informed consent.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (XLSX 267 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Duijs, F.E., Meijers, E., Kokshoorn, B. et al. Comparison of genotyping and weight of evidence results when applying different genotyping strategies on samples from a DNA transfer experiment. Int J Legal Med 137, 47–56 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-022-02918-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-022-02918-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation