1 / 28

Other stuff about DNA profile evidence

Other stuff about DNA profile evidence . David Balding Imperial College London. Coancestry correction. RMP calculation assumes no relatedness doesn’t exist in reality assumption always unfair to defendants solution is available: coancestry coefficient θ or F ST

glenys
Download Presentation

Other stuff about DNA profile evidence

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Other stuff about DNA profile evidence David Balding Imperial College London

  2. Coancestry correction • RMP calculation assumes no relatedness • doesn’t exist in reality • assumption always unfair to defendants • solution is available: • coancestry coefficient θ or FST • value of θ varies over alternative possible culprits; in large well-mixed populations it will be <3% for almost all • don’t use average value of θ: those with highest values contribute most to match probability

  3. Coancestry values Suspect (call him s) θ measures average amount of shared ancestry of each alternative culprit with s. θ = 3% θ = 2% θ = 2% θ = 1.5% θ = 1% θ = 1% θ = 1% θ = 0.5% θ = 0.5%

  4. Uniqueness • No matter how strong is DNA evidence, it can be offset by exculpatory evidence • Uniqueness → guilt, so P(U) < P(G) • In fact 1 - ΣRX > 1 - 2ΣRX if wX ≤ 1 P(U) > 1 + ΣRXwX • More details in Sci & Just (1999): When can a DNA profile be regarded as unique?

  5. Uniqueness • Need to consider relatives of defendant, both close and distant • Plausible upper bounds: 10 siblings,…, 107 unrelated (θ = 2%) • Match at 11 STR loci usually suffices to have P(U)>99.9% • BUT: • assumes no error • how high do we need P(U) to claim “unique”? • relies on wX ≤ 1, not in domain of scientist

  6. Familial searches • If no complete matches in database, may be near-matches suggestive of relatedness between offender and member(s) of database • most useful for parent/child or full sibs • when is this “suggestion” strong enough to justify further investigation? • answer uses likelihood ratio

  7. LR for sibs LR(sib vs unrelated) = Data = offender profile & near-match profile Pr(data | sibs) Pr(data | unrelated) For more details and discussion see Paoletti, Doom, Raymer & Krane (Jurimetrics 2006). Also Marjan & Sjerps (1999)

  8. Short-cut formula for relatedness LR at single locus: LR(related vs unrelated) = k2 + k1x LR(paternity) + k0x LR(unrelated) where ki = Prob share i alleles ibd. For sibs, k0 = ¼, k1 = ½ , k2 = ¼. • should include θ correction in LR • should also consider LR(sibs vs half-sibs) and LR(sibs vs cousins) etc • full analysis: add up prior probability for each possible relationship x LR for that relationship

  9. DI Offspring • Problem • 13 individuals, 10 are the offspring of donor insemination, 3 are putative natural offspring of known donors. • DI offspring conceived at the London clinic of a pioneer of human artificial insemination. No records available. • Question: who, if any of the individuals, is related via fathers to whom?

  10. Data MSENBMWM BS JS DG BE WE MA JW EV NI PM MM SF SH MF • Genotypes consist of 9 to 17 STR loci.

  11. JW, EV and SF were all thought to be the offspring of the same, known donor • we ignored this information • Canadian company typed JS, BS and DG at 3 RFLP loci and 13 STRs; confirmed full-sib relationship of JS and BS; half-sibs of DG • we reanalysed the STR data + additional STRs • Further testing in California: • JW not related to JS and BS • Typing in London • NI and SF have common father

  12. Use of LR infeasible for many, complex pedigrees ─ easier for pairs, so start with that • Hypotheses (not exhaustive): HS = two individuals are (paternal) half-siblings; UN = unrelated. • Under HS there are two equally likely cases, • paternal allele shared ibd • paternal alleles not ibd. • LR for a single locus: (1)

  13. Pairwise LR with mothers’ genotypes • Mothers’ genotypes, where available, help to identify the paternal allele in the offspring. • After some manipulation we can obtain: • Assumes mother’s genotypes independent – not strictly true. • 0nly 4 distinct forms for LR

  14. Mayor & Balding: For Sci Int 06. • Reliable inferences in the absence of maternal genotypes requires many more than the 10 – 25 loci routinely used. • Inclusion of maternal genotypes more than halves the number of loci required (~22 with mothers, ~50 without). • More power to discriminate half-sibs than profiling the same number of additional loci in the offspring alone.

  15. Pairwise LRs: reference alleles from UK Donorlink/LGC Includes maternal data where available BS SF JS DG LR > 100 LR > 50 MM BE MF SH NI WE JW EV PM

  16. Trio LRs • With pairs can never make an exclusion. • with trios can exclude a common father for all three individuals (no mutation). • LR for trios: compare one father vs three fathers • very clearly not exhaustive hypotheses. • Here, ibd => all the individuals share a paternal allele. • Also need corresponding LR when mothers available.

  17. Trio LRs With maternal information where present MM SF JS LR > 10 000 LR > 1000 MF BE BS DG SH JW EV PM WE

  18. Trio LRs With maternal information where present MM SF JS LR > 10 000 MF BE BS DG SH JW EV PM WE

  19. Familias math.chalmers.se/~mostad/familias/ • Results of pairwise and trio LR allow us to reduce the number of possible pedigrees to 26. • Familias – software that determines the most probable pedigree given genotype information (Egeland et al, 2000).

  20. Familias Pedigrees Probability = 0.0003, mutation rate = 0.001

  21. Familias Pedigrees Probability = 0.1710, mutation rate = 0.001

  22. Familias Pedigrees Probability = 0.8287, mutation rate = 0.001

  23. Linkage • Increase in number of loci used means some loci are going to be linked – tend to be co-inherited. • We have also investigated the effect of linkage on the classification of half-sibs. • Can locate 60 loci genome-wide with no spacing < 50 cM. At this level effect of linkage is modest and we have neglected it

  24. Low copy number: partial profiles • Crime scene profile = A; Suspect s is AB; • normally exclusion, but could be that s is the donor of the crime scene sample and B allele suffered “drop-out”. • Similarly, the true source of the crime stain could have any genotype that includes an A allele.

  25. pA2 + 2 pA (1 – DA) Σx≠A pxDx = LR(different sources vs same source) (1 – DA) DB DX = drop-out probability for allele X (under the conditions to which the stain was exposed). If D is the same for all X then 1 – 2D(1-D) LR = pA2 + 2pA (1 – D)D LR >> 1 (different sources) if D small or D large

  26. Recent Old Bailey case • Lots of victim DNA, 17 STR alleles at 10 loci. • Minute trace of offender (?) DNA, 8 alleles not masked by victim alleles or artefacts. • Defendant profile has 11 alleles not masked. Includes all 8 minor component alleles. • Qn: how strong is evidence?? What to do about 3 alleles that should have been there under prosecution hypothesis: • trace peak in each position, not to reportable standards • 1 in stutter position adjacent to homozygote peak • 2 at HMW positions, more susceptible to dropout ?

  27. Forensic Science Service has no written procedures for dealing with this situation (“missing alleles”). • In effect analysis assumed LR=1 at missing loci (so “neutral”, same as if the three loci were never tested) • I argued that this can’t be right in principle: alleles not there that should be under prosecution case may favour defendant.

  28. Conclusion: What to say to jurors? • No mention of “random man”, “random match probability” etc • Jurors’ task that expert can help with is to assess if there are alternative possible offenders with same profile • real people with names, none of them is “random” • some are relatives of defendant • all have shared ancestry with defendant at some level • Give expected number(s) of matches

More Related