Analysis of uni and bi-parental markers in mixture samples: Lessons from the 22nd GHEP-ISFG Intercomparison Exercise

U. Toscanini, L. Gusmão, M. C. Álava Narváez, J. C. Álvarez, L. Baldassarri, A. Barbaro, G. Berardi, E. Betancor Hernández, M. Camargo, J. Carreras-Carbonell, J. Castro, S. C. Costa, P. Coufalova, V. Domínguez, E. Fagundes de Carvalho, S. T.G. Ferreira, S. Furfuro, O. García, A. Goios, R. GonzálezA. González de la Vega, A. Gorostiza, A. Hernández, S. Jiménez Moreno, M. V. Lareu, A. León Almagro, M. Marino, G. Martínez, M. C. Miozzo, N. M. Modesti, V. Onofri, S. Pagano, B. Pardo Arias, S. Pedrosa, G. A. Penacino, M. L. Pontes, M. J. Porto, J. Puente-Prieto, R. Ramírez Pérez, T. Ribeiro, B. Rodríguez Cardozo, Y. M. Rodríguez Lesmes, A. Sala, B. Santiago, V. G. Saragoni, A. Serrano, E. R. Streitenberger, M. A. Torres Morales, S. A. Vannelli Rey, M. Velázquez Miranda, M. R. Whittle, K. Fernández, A. Salas

Producción científica: Contribución a una revistaArtículorevisión exhaustiva

8 Citas (Scopus)


Since 1992, the Spanish and Portuguese-Speaking Working Group of the ISFG (GHEP-ISFG) has been organizing annual Intercomparison Exercises (IEs) coordinated by the Quality Service at the National Institute of Toxicology and Forensic Sciences (INTCF) from Madrid, aiming to provide proficiency tests for forensic DNA laboratories. Each annual exercise comprises a Basic (recently accredited under ISO/IEC 17043: 2010) and an Advanced Level, both including a kinship and a forensic module. Here, we show the results for both autosomal and sex-chromosomal STRs, and for mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in two samples included in the forensic modules, namely a mixture 2:1 (v/v) saliva/blood (M4) and a mixture 4:1 (v/v) saliva/semen (M8) out of the five items provided in the 2014 GHEP-ISFG IE. Discrepancies, other than typos or nomenclature errors (over the total allele calls), represented 6.5% (M4) and 4.7% (M8) for autosomal STRs, 15.4% (M4) and 7.8% (M8) for X-STRs, and 1.2% (M4) and 0.0% (M8) for Y-STRs. Drop-out and drop-in alleles were the main cause of errors, with laboratories using different criteria regarding inclusion of minor peaks and stutter bands. Commonly used commercial kits yielded different results for a micro-variant detected at locus D12S391. In addition, the analysis of electropherograms revealed that the proportions of the contributors detected in the mixtures varied among the participants. In regards to mtDNA analysis, besides important discrepancies in reporting heteroplasmies, there was no agreement for the results of sample M4. Thus, while some laboratories documented a single control region haplotype, a few reported unexpected profiles (suggesting contamination problems). For M8, most laboratories detected only the haplotype corresponding to the saliva. Although the GHEP-ISFG has already a large experience in IEs, the present multi-centric study revealed challenges that still exist related to DNA mixtures interpretation. Overall, the results emphasize the need for further research and training actions in order to improve the analysis of mixtures among the forensic practitioners.

Idioma originalInglés
Páginas (desde-hasta)63-72
Número de páginas10
PublicaciónForensic Science International: Genetics
EstadoPublicada - 1 nov. 2016
Publicado de forma externa


Profundice en los temas de investigación de 'Analysis of uni and bi-parental markers in mixture samples: Lessons from the 22nd GHEP-ISFG Intercomparison Exercise'. En conjunto forman una huella única.

Citar esto