In many cases, mixtures can be interpreted more reliably with PGS than without it, if the analyst understands the assumptions made by the software and the underlying mathematics. This makes PGS an extremely important tool, and one that can help investigators solve many crimes that might otherwise go unsolved. However, the type of software used, how the software is configured, and which models the software runs can all affect the results.
Therefore, different labs might produce different results when interpreting the same evidence. Sometimes those differences can be large enough to call into question the reproducibility of the results. This highlights the fact that every scientific method has its limits, and some mixtures will be too complex to reliably interpret even with PGS.
Currently, there is no consensus on how to identify those limits. If the evidence contains a lot of DNA, this might not be a problem. For instance, investigators at the scene of a home invasion and homicide might find a broken window with blood on the glass. In that case, they might reasonably conclude that the killer broke the window to enter and cut himself on the way in. In other words, they can associate the DNA in the blood with the crime.
However, if the killer entered through an unlocked door, a swab of the doorknob might yield DNA from many innocent people who, in touching the doorknob, transferred their DNA to it. In addition, DNA can be transferred multiple times. For example, if you shake the hand of a person who later touches the door knob, your DNA can end up on the door knob even though you never touched it. Scientists have conducted studies to better understand the factors that make DNA transfer more or less likely.
They have found that some people tend to shed more DNA than others, and some objects and materials are particularly good vehicles for transferring DNA. Still, our understanding of how, and how often, DNA transfer happens is limited.
When using high-sensitivity methods, however, forensic scientists are more likely to detect and get profiles from irrelevant DNA. That means that the risk of incorrectly associating a person with a crime has gone up in recent years. One way to do that, she says, is to consider the totality of the evidence in a case rather than relying solely on an isolated fragment of DNA that might not be relevant.
These types of samples, though often challenging, can still provide very powerful and reliable evidence. Mixtures exist on a spectrum, and the ability to reliably interpret a particular mixture depends on the specifics of the case. The key is to ask the right questions. How complex is the mixture in terms of number of contributors and the amount of DNA from each?
How confident can we be that the DNA is relevant to the case? What other types of evidence exist to corroborate the DNA evidence? Perhaps more than at any time since forensic DNA methods were invented 35 years ago, this type of critical thinking is needed. How far can we push new methods when interpreting complex DNA mixtures?
How can we establish consistent protocols for deciding when a mixture is too complex to interpret reliably? What additional training do forensic analysts need to use new methods appropriately? NIST has completed a study that evaluates these issues. Credit: N. By: Rich Press. Facebook Linkedin Twitter Email. Air-dry evidence thoroughly before packaging. Put evidence into new paper bags or envelopes, not into plastic bags. Do not use staples. Transportation and storage When transporting and storing evidence that may contain DNA, it is important to keep the evidence dry and at room temperature.
Once the evidence has been secured in paper bags or envelopes, it should be sealed, labeled, and transported in a way that ensures proper identification of where it was found and proper chain of custody. Never place evidence that may contain DNA in plastic bags because plastic bags will retain damaging moisture. Direct sunlight and warmer conditions also may be harmful to DNA, so avoid keeping evidence in places that may get hot, such as a room or police car without air conditioning.
For long-term storage issues, contact your local laboratory. The authors were able to develop reproducible procedures for the artificial degradation of human DNA samples using ionizing radiation to inflict a DNA damage profile that reprises that of a typical degraded forensic sample. The authors were able to show that the reactions promoted by these reagents effectively restore damaged DNA flanking a particular STR locus.
The findings indicate that with the developed protocol signal restoration is successful approximately 20 percent of the time. The findings permit the development of a method capable of physically repairing double strand breaks in damaged DNA, thereby decreasing polymerase chain reaction inhibitors PCR inhibition and increasing the amount of reliable STR loci in the profile.
Here, we report the results from a set of 10 samples from missing person identification cases, analyzed with an MPS based method comprising SNP markers and compared with direct reference material or buccal swab samples collected from relatives of the deceased. We assess the weight of evidence of a match by statistical calculation.
Furthermore, we compare results reported on different platforms using different SNP panels, and conclude that more work has to be done if results from missing person identification cases analyzed on MPS with SNP panels at different laboratories are to be fully reliable and thus comparable.
0コメント