Reinvestigations of six unusual paternity cases by typing of autosomal single‐nucleotide polymorphisms

Abstract

The case work examples underline the importance of performing supplementary investigations, and they advocate for the implementation of several panels that may be used in the highly unusual cases. Panels with SNPs or other markers with low mutation probabilities are preferable as supplementary markers, because the risk of detecting (additional) mutations is very low.

Kinship Analysis with Diallelic SNPs – Experiences with the SNPforID Multiplex in an ISO17025 Accreditated Laboratory

“…Half are paternity cases, and the other half are immigration cases. The case example shown above is a good example of how useful the SNPforID assay is in complicated relationship cases, and we recently published other case examples from our own laboratory [27,28] and case examples from other laboratories that were reinvestigated with the SNPforID assay [29]. The assay itself has worked robustly after the improvements made during the validation [11], and the typing success rate for any SNP in any experiment since the assay was introduced in routine case work was 98%.…”

Forensic genetic SNP typing of low-template DNA and highly degraded DNA from crime case samples

“…The assay proved to be a valuable supplement to STR typing in cases, where the conclusions based on STRs were ambiguous [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]. All 49 SNP loci were amplified in one PCR reaction and the SNPs were detected by two single base extension (SBE) reactions and capillary electrophoresis [4,23,32].…”

Pretense of parentage by siblings in immigration: Polesky's paradox reconsidered

“…Therefore, an accredited relationship test laboratory must be prepared to deal with the difficulties presented by suspicion of false claims of parentage by blood relatives. At present, readiness may require: 1) testing a greater number of STR loci than is presently done; 2) screening large multiplexes of other validated loci (e.g., SNPs) that may demonstrate a sufficient number (at least two) of GIs to rule out parentage; 3) determining the genotypes of more alleged relatives than the two initially presenting people; and 4) coping with complaints and problems caused by delayed case processing and more expensive testing.…”