PAPER
CRIMINALISTICS

Comparisons of Familial DNA Database Searching Strategies

Correction(s) for this article

Jianye Ge Ph.D.

Department of Forensic and Investigative Genetics, University of North Texas Health Science Center, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76107.

Institute of Investigative Genetics, University of North Texas Health Science Center, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76107.

Search for more papers by this author

Ranajit Chakraborty Ph.D.,

Ranajit Chakraborty Ph.D.

Department of Forensic and Investigative Genetics, University of North Texas Health Science Center, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76107.

Institute of Investigative Genetics, University of North Texas Health Science Center, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76107.

Search for more papers by this author

Arthur Eisenberg Ph.D.,

Arthur Eisenberg Ph.D.

Department of Forensic and Investigative Genetics, University of North Texas Health Science Center, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76107.

Institute of Investigative Genetics, University of North Texas Health Science Center, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76107.

Search for more papers by this author

Bruce Budowle Ph.D.,

Bruce Budowle Ph.D.

Department of Forensic and Investigative Genetics, University of North Texas Health Science Center, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76107.

Institute of Investigative Genetics, University of North Texas Health Science Center, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76107.

Search for more papers by this author

Jianye Ge Ph.D.,

Jianye Ge Ph.D.

Department of Forensic and Investigative Genetics, University of North Texas Health Science Center, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76107.

Institute of Investigative Genetics, University of North Texas Health Science Center, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76107.

Search for more papers by this author

Ranajit Chakraborty Ph.D.,

Ranajit Chakraborty Ph.D.

Department of Forensic and Investigative Genetics, University of North Texas Health Science Center, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76107.

Institute of Investigative Genetics, University of North Texas Health Science Center, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76107.

Search for more papers by this author

Arthur Eisenberg Ph.D.,

Arthur Eisenberg Ph.D.

Department of Forensic and Investigative Genetics, University of North Texas Health Science Center, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76107.

Institute of Investigative Genetics, University of North Texas Health Science Center, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76107.

Search for more papers by this author

Bruce Budowle Ph.D.,

Bruce Budowle Ph.D.

Department of Forensic and Investigative Genetics, University of North Texas Health Science Center, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76107.

Institute of Investigative Genetics, University of North Texas Health Science Center, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76107.

Search for more papers by this author

First published: 09 August 2011

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01867.x

Citations: 46

Additional information and reprint requests:
Jianye Ge, Ph.D.
Institute of Investigative Genetics
University of North Texas, Health Science Center
3500 Camp Bowie Blvd.
Fort Worth, TX 76107
E-mail: [email protected]

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

Abstract

Abstract: The current familial searching strategies are generally based on either Identity-By-State (IBS) (i.e., number of shared alleles) or likelihood ratio (i.e., kinship index [KI]) assessments. In this study, the expected IBS match probabilities given relationships and the logic of the likelihood ratio method were addressed. Further, the false-positive and false-negative rates of the strategies were compared analytically or by simulations using Caucasian population data of the 13 CODIS Short Tandem Repeat (STR). IBS ≥ 15, IBS ≥ 16, KI ≥ 1000, or KI ≥ 10,000 were found to be good thresholds for balancing false-positive and false-negative rates. IBS ≥ 17 and/or KI ≥ 1,000,000 can exclude the majority of candidate profiles in the database, either related or not, and may be an initial screening option if a small candidate list is desired. Polices combining both IBS and KI can provide higher accuracy. Typing additional STRs can provide better searching performance, and lineage markers can be extremely useful for reducing false rates.

References

1 Evett IW. Evaluating DNA profiles in a case where the defence is ‘‘It was my brother.’’ J Forensic Sci Soc 1992; 32: 5–14.
10.1016/S0015-7368(92)73041-2
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
2 Sjerps M, Kloosterman AD. On the consequences of DNA mismatches for close relatives of an excluded suspect. Int J Legal Med 1999; 112: 176–80.
10.1007/s004140050227
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
3 Belin TR, Gjertson DW, Hu M. Summarizing DNA evidence when relatives are possible suspects. J Am Stat Assoc 1997; 92(438): 706–16.
10.2307/2965719
Web of Science® Google Scholar
4 Brookfield JF. The effect of relatives on the likelihood ratio associated with DNA profile evidence in criminal cases. J Forensic Sci Soc 1994; 34(3): 193–7.
10.1016/S0015-7368(94)72914-5
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5 Bieber FR, Brenner CH, Lazer D. Finding criminals through DNA of their relatives. Science 2006; 312: 1315–6.
10.1126/science.1122655
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
6 Paoletti DR, Doom TE, Raymer ML, Krane DE. Assessing the implications for close relatives in the event of similar but nonmatching DNA profiles. Jurimetrics J 2006; 42: 161–75.
Google Scholar
7 Reid TM, Baird ML, Reid JP, Lee SC, Lee RF. Use of sibling pairs to determine the familial searching efficiency of forensic databases. Forensic Sci Int Genet 2008; 2: 340–2.
10.1016/j.fsigen.2008.04.008
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8 Curran JM, Buckleton J. Effectiveness of familial searches. Sci Justice 2008; 48: 164–7.
10.1016/j.scijus.2008.04.004
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
9 Cowen S, Thomson J. A likelihood ratio approach to familial searching of large DNA databases. Forensic Sci Int Genet 2008; 1: 643–5.
10.1016/j.fsigss.2007.10.196
Google Scholar
10 Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods Ad Hoc Committee on Partial Matches. SWGDAM Recommendations to the FBI Director on the “Interim Plan for the Release of Information in the Event of a ‘Partial Match’ at NDIS.” Forensic Sci Comm 2009; 11(4).
Google Scholar
11 Hicks T, Taroni F, Curran JM, Buckleton J, Ribaux O, Castella V. Use of DNA profiles for investigation using a simulated Swiss national DNA database: part I, partial SGM Plus1 profiles. Forensic Sci Int Genet 2010; 4(4): 232–8.
10.1016/j.fsigen.2009.10.002
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12 Hicks T, Taroni F, Curran JM, Buckleton J, Castella V, Ribaux O. Use of DNA profiles for investigation using a simulated Swiss national DNA database: part II, statistical and ethical considerations on familial searching. Forensic Sci Int Genet 2010; 4(5): 316–22.
10.1016/j.fsigen.2009.11.006
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
13 Chakraborty R, Jin L. Determination of relatedness between individuals by DNA fingerprinting. Hum Biol 1993; 65: 875–95.
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
14 California Department of Justice, Division of Law Enforcement. DNA Partial Match (Crime Scene DNA Profile to Offender) Policy, 2008, http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1548_08-bfs-01.pdf (accessed on August 23, 2010).
Google Scholar
15 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2009/11/map-state-dna-policies/ (accessed on August 23, 2010).
Google Scholar
16 Li CC, Sacks L. The derivation of joint distribution and correlation between relatives by the use of stochastic matrices. Biometrics 1954; 10: 347–60.
10.2307/3001590
Web of Science® Google Scholar
17 Thompson EA. The estimation of pairwise relationships. Ann Hum Genet 1975; 39: 173–88.
10.1111/j.1469-1809.1975.tb00120.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
18 Ge J, Budowle B, Chakraborty R. Choosing relatives for DNA identification of missing persons. J Forensic Sci 2011; 56(s1): S23–8.
10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01631.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
19 Ge J, Budowle B, Chakraborty R. DNA identification by pedigree likelihood ratio accommodating population substructure and mutations. Investig Genet 2010; 1:8.
10.1186/2041-2223-1-8
PubMed Google Scholar
20 Weir BS. Matching and partially-matching DNA profiles. Ann Appl Stat 2007; 1(2): 358–70.
10.1214/07-AOAS128
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
21 Weir BS. The rarity of DNA profiles. J Forensic Sci 2004; 49: 1009–14.
10.1520/JFS2003039
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
22 Balding DJ, Nichols RA. DNA profile match probability calculation: how to allow for population stratification, relatedness, database selection and single bands. Forensic Sci Int 1994; 64: 125–40.
10.1016/0379-0738(94)90222-4
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
23 Chakraborty R, Schull WJ. A note on the distribution of the number of exclusions to be expected in paternity testing. Am J Hum Genet 1976; 28: 615–8.
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
24 Chakraborty R. The distribution of the number of heterozygous loci in an individual in natural populations. Genetics 1981; 98: 461–6.
10.1093/genetics/98.2.461
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
25 AABB annual report 2008, http://www.aabb.org/sa/facilities/Documents/rtannrpt08.pdf (accessed on August 23, 2010).
Google Scholar
26 Budowle B, Shea B, Niezgoda S, Chakraborty R. CODIS STR loci data from 41 sample populations. J Forensic Sci 2001; 46: 453–89.
10.1520/JFS14996J
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
27 Bureau of Justice Statistics. Correctional populations in United States, 1996, http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpius964.pdf (accessed on August 23, 2010).
Google Scholar
28 BBC News. “How police found Gafoor,” 4 July 2003, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3038138.stm (accessed on August 23, 2010).
Google Scholar
29 Budowle B, Ge J, Aranda X, Planz J, Eisenberg A, Chakraborty R. Texas population substructure and its impact on estimating the rarity of Y STR haplotypes from DNA evidence. J Forensic Sci 2009; 54(5): 1016–21.
10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01105.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
30 Walsh B, Redd A, Hammer M. Joint match probabilities for Y chromosomal and autosomal markers. Forensic Sci Int 2008; 174(2): 234–8.
10.1016/j.forsciint.2007.03.014
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume56, Issue6

November 2011

Pages 1448-1456

Comparisons of Familial DNA Database Searching Strategies

Correction(s) for this article

Erratum

Abstract

References

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Comparisons of Familial DNA Database Searching Strategies

Correction(s) for this article

Erratum

Abstract

References

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information