No abstract

The investigation of the performance of models to interpret complex DNA profiles is best undertaken using real DNA profiles. Here we used a data set to reflect the variety typically encountered in real casework. The "crime-stains" were constructed from known individuals and comprised a total of 59 diverse samples: pristine DNA/DNA extracted from blood, 2-3 person mixtures, degradation/no-degradation, differences in allele sharing, dropout/no dropout, etc. Two siblings were also included in the test-set in order to challenge the systems. Two kinds of analyses were performed, namely tests on whether a person of interest is a contributor based on weight-of-evidence (likelihood ratio) calculations, and deconvolution test to estimate the profile of unknown constituent parts. The weight-of-evidence analyses compared LRmix Studio with EuroForMix including exploration of the effect of applying an ad hoc stutter-filter. For the deconvolution analysis we compared EuroForMix with LoCIM-tool. When we classified persons of interests into being true contributors or non-contributors, we found that EuroForMix, overall, returned a higher true positive rate for the same false positive levels compared to LRmix. In particular, in cases with an unknown major component, EuroForMix was more discriminating for mixtures where the person of interest was a minor contributor. Comparing deconvolution of major contributors we found that EuroForMix overall performed better than LoCIM-tool.

No abstract

No abstract

Forensic analysis of biological traces generally encompasses the investigation of both the person who contributed to the trace and the body site(s) from which the trace originates. For instance, for sexual assault cases, it can be beneficial to distinguish vaginal samples from skin or saliva samples. In this study, we explored the use of microbial flora to indicate vaginal origin. First, we explored the vaginal microbiome for a large set of clinical vaginal samples (n = 240) by next generation sequencing (n = 338,184 sequence reads) and found 1,619 different sequences. Next, we selected 389 candidate probes targeting genera or species and designed a microarray, with which we analysed a diverse set of samples; 43 DNA extracts from vaginal samples and 25 DNA extracts from samples from other body sites, including sites in close proximity of or in contact with the vagina. Finally, we used the microarray results and next generation sequencing dataset to assess the potential for a future approach that uses microbial markers to indicate vaginal origin. Since no candidate genera/species were found to positively identify all vaginal DNA extracts on their own, while excluding all non-vaginal DNA extracts, we deduce that a reliable statement about the cellular origin of a biological trace should be based on the detection of multiple species within various genera. Microarray analysis of a sample will then render a microbial flora pattern that is probably best analysed in a probabilistic approach.