Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25869164›Full record

ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2007

STRs vs. SNPs: thoughts on the future of forensic DNA testing.

John M Butler, Michael D Coble, Peter M Vallone

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

54 citing papers in PubMed, 205 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

John M ButlerNational Institute of Standards and Technology, Biochemical Science Division, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8311, Building 227, Room A243, Gaithersburg, MD, 20899, USA, john.butler@nist.gov.
Michael D Coble
Peter M Vallone
National Institute of Standards and Technology · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Largely due to technological progress coming from the Human Genome and International HapMap Projects, the issue has been raised in recent years within the forensic DNA typing community of the potential for single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers as possible replacements of the currently used short tandem repeat (STR) loci. Our human identity testing project team at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has explored numerous SNP and STR loci and assays as well as developing miniSTRs for degraded DNA samples. Based on their power of discrimination, use in deciphering mixture components, and ability to be combined in multiplex assays in order to recover information from low amounts of biological material, we believe that STRs rather than SNPs will fulfill the dominant role in human identity testing for the foreseeable future. However, SNPs may play a useful role in specialized applications such as mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) testing, Y-SNPs as lineage markers, ancestry informative markers (AIMs), the prediction of phenotypic traits, and other potential niche forensic casework applications.

Identifiers

PMID25869164
OpenAlexW2170059665

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.