Top Banner
Evaluating forensic DNA evidence Forensic Bioinformatics (www.bioforensics.com) [email protected] Dan E. Krane Biological Sciences, Wright State University, Dayton OH 45435
48

Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

Jan 31, 2016

Download

Documents

Oni

Evaluating forensic DNA evidence. Dan E. Krane Biological Sciences, Wright State University, Dayton OH 45435. Forensic Bioinformatics (www.bioforensics.com) [email protected]. Three generations of DNA testing. RFLP AUTORAD Allele = BAND. DQ-alpha TEST STRIP Allele = BLUE DOT. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

Forensic Bioinformatics (www.bioforensics.com)[email protected]

Dan E. KraneBiological Sciences, Wright State University,

Dayton OH 45435

Page 2: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

Three generations of DNA testing

DQ-alphaTEST STRIPAllele = BLUE DOT

RFLPAUTORADAllele = BAND

Automated STRELECTROPHEROGRAMAllele = PEAK

Page 3: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

DNA in the Cell

Target Region for PCRTarget Region for PCR

chromosome

nucleus

Double stranded DNA

molecule AAAA

TTTTTTTT

CCCC

GGGGAAAA

AAAATTTT

cell

Page 4: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

DNA content of biological samples:Type of sample Amount of DNA

Blood 30,000 ng/mLstain 1 cm in area 200 ngstain 1 mm in area 2 ng

Semen 250,000 ng/mLPostcoital vaginal swab 0 - 3,000 ng

Hairpluckedshed

1 - 750 ng/hair1 - 12 ng/hair

Saliva

Urine5,000 ng/mL

1 - 20 ng/mL

2

2

Page 5: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

Basic terminology: Genetics

• DNA Polymorphism (“many forms”)– Regions of DNA which differ from person to

person • Locus (plural = loci)

– Site or location on a chromosome• Allele

– Different variants which can exist at a locus• DNA Profile

– The combination of alleles for an individual

Page 6: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

Basic terminology: Technology

• Amplification or PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction)– A technique for ‘replicating’ DNA in the

laboratory (‘molecular Xeroxing’)– Region to be amplified defined by PRIMERS– Can be ‘color coded’

• Electrophoresis– A technique for separating molecules according

to their size

Page 7: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

STR• Short tandem repeat• Describes a type of DNA polymorphism in

which:– a DNA sequence repeats– over and over again– and has a short (usually 4 base pair) repeat

unit• A length polymorphism -- alleles differ in their

length

5 repeats: AATG AATG AATG AATG AATG

6 repeats: AATG AATG AATG AATG AATG AATG

4 repeats: AATG AATG AATG AATG

3 repeats: AATG AATG AATG

Page 8: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

Reading an electropherogramPeaks correspond to alleles

Electropherogram

D3 vWA FGA

D8 D21 D18

D5 D13 D7

BLUE

GREEN

YELLOW

RED

AmelogeninAmelogeninXX = femaleXY = male

75 100 139

150

160

200 245 300 bpsRed = ROX size standard

Page 9: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

Automated STR Test

Page 10: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

Crime Scene Samples & Reference Samples

Differential extraction in sex assault cases separates out DNA from sperm cells

• Extract and purify DNA

Page 11: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

Extract and Purify DNA

• Add primers and other reagents

Page 12: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

PCR Amplification

Groups of amplified STR products are labeled with different colored dyes (blue, green, yellow)

• DNA regions flanked by primers are amplified

Page 13: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

The ABI 310 Genetic Analyzer:SIZE, COLOR & AMOUNT

Page 14: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

ABI 310 Genetic Analyzer: Capillary Electrophoresis

•Amplified STR DNA injected onto column

•Electric current applied

•DNA separated out by size:

– Large STRs travel slower

– Small STRs travel faster

•DNA pulled towards the positive electrode

•Color of STR detected and recorded as it passes the detector

DetectorWindow

Page 15: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

Profiler Plus: Raw data

Page 16: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

D3 vWA FGA

D8 D21 D18

D5 D13 D7

Am

RAW DATARAW DATA

PROCESSED DATAPROCESSED DATA

•GENESCAN divides the raw data into a separate electropherogram for each color:

•Blue•Green•Yellow•Red

•GENOTYPER identifies the different loci and makes the allele calls

•The type of this sample is:–D3: 16, 17–vWA: 15, 15–FGA: 21,23–Amelogenin: X, Y–D8: 16, 16–D21: 28, 29–D18: 14, 19–D5: 8, 12–D13: 11, 13–D7: 10 10

Page 17: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

Statistical estimates: the product rule

0.222 x 0.222 x 2

= 0.1

Page 18: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

Statistical estimates: the product rule

= 0.1

1 in 79,531,528,960,000,000

1 in 80 quadrillion

1 in 10 1 in 111 1 in 20

1 in 22,200

x x

1 in 100 1 in 14 1 in 81

1 in 113,400

x x

1 in 116 1 in 17 1 in 16

1 in 31,552

x x

Page 19: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

D3S1358 FGAVWA

AMEL D8S1179 D21S11 D18S51

D5S818 D13S317 D7S820

Profiler Plus

Page 20: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

D3S1358

AMEL

D7S820

D16S539

TH01TPOX CSF1PO

Cofiler

Page 21: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

D3S1358 D16S539

VWA

AMEL

D8S1179D21S11

D18S51

D19S433

D5S818 FGA

D2S1338

TPOX

TH01 D13S317

CSF1POD7S820

Identifiler

Page 22: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

LOOKING AT A DNA REPORT

Page 23: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

Components of a DNA report

• The samples tested– Evidence samples (crime scene)– Reference samples (defendant, suspect)

• The lab doing the testing• The test used:

– Profiler Plus, Cofiler, Identifiler, mtDNA• The analyst who did the testing• Results and conclusions:

– Table of alleles– Narrative conclusions

Page 24: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

Table of alleles

• Some labs include more information than others• Usually includes information about mixed samples• May also include:

– Indication of low level results– Indication of results not reported– Relative amounts of different alleles (in mixed

samples)• No standard format

Page 25: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

Narrative conclusions

• Indicates which samples match• Includes a statistical estimate• Identifies samples as mixed• May include an ‘identity statement’ i.e., samples are from the same

source to a scientific degree of certainty (FBI)• May allude to problems (e.g. interpretative ambiguity,

contamination)

Page 26: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

Looking beneath the report

Page 27: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

Sources of ambiguity in STR interpretation

• Degradation• Allelic dropout• False peaks• Mixtures• Accounting for relatives• Threshold issues -- marginal

samples

Page 28: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

Degradation

• When biological samples are exposed to adverse environmental conditions, they can become degraded

– Warm, moist, sunlight, time• Degradation breaks the DNA at random• Larger amplified regions are affected first• Classic ‘ski-slope’ electropherogram• Peaks on the right lower than peaks on the left

LARGE

SMALL

Page 29: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

Allelic Dropout

• Peaks in evidence samples all very low– Mostly below 150 rfu

• Peaks in reference sample much higher– All well above 800 rfu

• At D13S817:– Reference sample: 8, 14 – Evidence sample: 8, 8

• 14 allele has dropped out -- or has it?• Tend to see with ‘marginal samples’

1500

Evidence sampleEvidence sample

Reference sampleReference sample

150

?

Page 30: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

False peaks & machine problems

• False peaks:– Contamination– Dye blob– Electrical spikes– Pull-up

• Machine problems:– Noise– Baseline instability– Injection failures

Page 31: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

Mixed DNA samples

QuickTime™ and aPhoto - JPEG decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Page 32: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

How many contributors to a mixture if analysts can discard a locus?

How many contributors to a mixture?

Maximum # of alleles observed in a 3 person mixture # of occurrences Percent of cases

2 0 0.00

3 310 0.00

4 2,498,139 5.53

5 29,938,777 66.32

6 12,702,670 28.14

There are 45,139,896 possible different 3-way mixtures of the 648 individuals in the MN BCI database.

8,151

1,526,550

32,078,976

11,526,219

0.02

3.38

71.07

25.53

Page 33: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

How many loci must have six or fewer alleles to be confident there

were only three contributors?

Nine loci are commonly used.No kit tests at more than 16 loci.Approximately 144 loci must be examined for

95% confidence that there were only 3 contributors.

4-Way Mixtures, MN Data, Average

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144

Loci

% Misclassified

Page 34: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

Opportunities for subjective interpretation?

Page 35: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

Opportunities for subjective interpretation?

D3: 12, 17 vWA: 15, 17 FGA: 22, 26

Page 36: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

Opportunities for subjective interpretation?

Page 37: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

Opportunities for subjective interpretation?

Page 38: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

Opportunities for subjective interpretation?

Page 39: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

Opportunities for subjective interpretation?

Page 40: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

Accounting for relatives

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

14.00%

16.00%

18.00%

20.00%

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23

Number of Shared Alleles

Percent of Total

Synthetic

Cousins

Siblings

Page 41: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

Likelihood ratios for allele sharing:

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23

Number of Shared Alleles

Likelihood

Synthetic

Cousins

Siblings

Page 42: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

• Automatically runs GeneScan and GenoTyper

• Presents all output in a web page

• Performs expert analysis to identify problems

• Generates a report detailing all testing issues

Page 43: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence
Page 44: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

Genophiler output:

Page 45: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence
Page 46: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

Genophiler also flags potential problems for further review:

Page 47: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

Forensic BioInformatics (bioforensics.com)

• Uses Genophiler to generate easily interpreted files

• Objectively applies analysis parameters to all samples

• Fast turn around times

• Efficiently draws attention to problems requiring further review

Page 48: Evaluating forensic DNA evidence

Resources

• Books– ‘Forensic DNA Typing’ by John M. Butler (Academic Press)

• Internet– Applied Biosystems Website: http://www.appliedbiosystems.com/ (see

human identity and forensics)– Promega Website: http://www.promega.com/ (see Genetic Identity)– STR base: http://www.cstl.nist.gov/biotech/strbase/ (very useful)

• Scientists– Larry Mueller (UC Irvine)– Simon Ford (Lexigen, Inc. San Francisco, CA)– William C. Thompson (UC Irvine)– William Shields (SUNY, Syracuse, NY)– Marc Taylor (Technical Associates, Ventura, CA)– Carll Ladd (Connecticut State Police)

• Testing laboratories– Technical Associates (Ventura, CA)– Forensic Analytical (Haywood, CA)

• Other resources– Forensic BioInformatics (Dayton, OH)