ArticlePloS one2017
Qualitative and quantitative assessment of Illumina's forensic STR and SNP kits on MiSeq FGx™.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- High polymorphism detected by massively parallel sequencing of autosomal STRs using old blood samples from a Chinese Han population.Scientific reports · 2019Trial
- Development of a Multiplex Amplification System Using Oxford Nanopore Sequencing for STRs and InDels.Human mutation · 2026Article
- Review
- Article
- The forensic landscape and the population genetic analyses of Hainan Li based on massively parallel sequencing DNA profiling.International journal of legal medicine · 2021Article
- A novel computational strategy to predict the value of the evidence in the SNP-based forensic mixtures.PloS one · 2021Article
- Interpol review of forensic biology and forensic DNA typing 2016-2019.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2020Review
- DNA identification of compromised samples with massive parallel sequencing.Forensic sciences research · 2019Article
- Massively parallel sequencing techniques for forensics: A review.Electrophoresis · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Massively parallel sequencing (MPS) is a powerful tool transforming DNA analysis in multiple fields ranging from medicine, to environmental science, to evolutionary biology. In forensic applications, MPS offers the ability to significantly increase the discriminatory power of human identification as well as aid in mixture deconvolution. However, before the benefits of any new technology can be employed, a thorough evaluation of its quality, consistency, sensitivity, and specificity must be rigorously evaluated in order to gain a detailed understanding of the technique including sources of error, error rates, and other restrictions/limitations. This extensive study assessed the performance of Illumina's MiSeq FGx MPS system and ForenSeq™ kit in nine experimental runs including 314 reaction samples. In-depth data analysis evaluated the consequences of different assay conditions on test results. Variables included: sample numbers per run, targets per run, DNA input per sample, and replications. Results are presented as heat maps revealing patterns for each locus. Data analysis focused on read numbers (allele coverage), drop-outs, drop-ins, and sequence analysis. The study revealed that loci with high read numbers performed better and resulted in fewer drop-outs and well balanced heterozygous alleles. Several loci were prone to drop-outs which led to falsely typed homozygotes and therefore to genotype errors. Sequence analysis of allele drop-in typically revealed a single nucleotide change (deletion, insertion, or substitution). Analyses of sequences, no template controls, and spurious alleles suggest no contamination during library preparation, pooling, and sequencing, but indicate that sequencing or PCR errors may have occurred due to DNA polymerase infidelities. Finally, we found utilizing Illumina's FGx System at recommended conditions does not guarantee 100% outcomes for all samples tested, including the positive control, and required manual editing due to low read numbers and/or allele drop-in. These findings are important for progressing towards implementation of MPS in forensic DNA testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.