GEDNAP IV and V. The 4th and 5th stain blind trials using DNA technology

Abstract

In the collaborative exercise GEDNAP IV one EDTA blood sample (2 ml) and 5 bloodstains (0.5 ml on cotton) were investigated and in GEDNAP V, a total of 8 bloodstains (0.5 ml on cotton), including 2 mixed bloodstains. DNA typing was carried out using the RFLP systems YNH24/Hinf I and MS43a/Hinf I and the PCR systems HLA DQ alpha, D1S80, ApoB and YNZ22. In both exercises approximately 20 laboratories obtained results using the RFLP systems. Of the PCR systems, D1S80 was the most commonly used (14 labs in GEDNAP IV; 18 labs in GEDNAP V). The interlaboratory standard deviation for YNH24 in both exercises was approx. 0.6%, for MS43a 0.7-2.2% (GEDNAP IV) and 0.4-1.4% (GEDNAP V), depending on the fragment size. The fragment size calculation performed in each laboratory yielded a standard deviation twice that obtained when the fragment size calculation was performed centrally (IfR, Münster). In GEDNAP III, a system-specific corridor was developed to define the limits of deviation; this was modified for the present study by combining the fragment size ranges of YNH24 and MS43a. In both studies a subgroup of laboratories was involved in preliminary exercises using three PCR VNTRs and the system HLA DQ alpha. Owing to the substantial variation in experience of the participating laboratories with PCR typing the results obtained in these two studies do not fulfil the basic quality criteria of the GEDNAP studies.

A review of the collaborative exercises on DNA typing of the Spanish and Portuguese ISFH working group

“…These results are similar to the GEDNAP Bär et al 1992;Brinkmann et al 1993;Wiegand et al 1995), ESWG (Syndercombe-Court and Lincoln 1996), and the second EDNAP exercise (Gill et al 1992), and considerably better than the EDNAP I trial (Schneider et al 1991). The interlab variation was 4.11% in one isolated case.…”

The GEDNAP (German DNA profiling group) blind trial concept

“…For AmpFLPs this was extended to deal with sequence and electrophoretic variations due to base content (GEDNAP studies, Puers et al 1992;Bär et al 1992;Brinkmann et al 1993;Wiegand et al 1995).…”

How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence

“…Most laboratories participate in periodic proficiency tests, which can cast some light on the potential for error. European forensic laboratories have carried out collaborative exercises involving analysis of stains from known sources (21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26). However, this work is designed more to test the uniformity of DNA test results among laboratories using the same protocol than to determine the rate of errors.…”