ArticleForensic sciences research2019
DNA identification of compromised samples with massive parallel sequencing.
Article in Forensic sciences research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A novel 193-plex MPS panel integrating STRs and SNPs highlights the application value of forensic genetics in individual identification and paternity testing.Human genetics · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Library Preparation Workflows and Applications to Different Sample Types Using the PowerSeqGenes · 2023Article
- Recent advances in forensic biology and forensic DNA typing: INTERPOL review 2019-2022.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2023Article
- Next generation sequencing of a set of ancestry-informative SNPs: ancestry assignment of three continental populations and estimating ancestry composition for Mongolians.Molecular genetics and genomics : MGG · 2020Article
- Modern advances in disaster victim identification.Forensic sciences research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genetic profiling is a standard procedure for human identification, i.e. in criminal cases and mass disasters, and has been proven to be an important part in the process in the repatriation of victims to their relatives. In the event of a catastrophe whether it be a natural disaster, terror attack or accident, fatalities of many nationalities may be a consequence and international collaboration becomes necessary. Current DNA techniques used on a routine basis at forensic laboratories world-wide are very useful, and results reported from different labs are compared, making it possible to be matched in order to declare the identification of a victim. Statistical calculations of possibilities of a random match are achievable since population data from many parts of the world are available. However, decomposition and degradation of the remains are not uncommon in the aftermath of a catastrophe and hence it may be difficult to retrieve detailed DNA profiles from such samples. Massive parallel sequencing (MPS) is a technique capable of producing a vast amount of DNA sequence data in a high-through put manner, and panels of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers allow the amplification of small DNA fragments, often seen in compromised samples. Here, we report the results from a set of 10 samples from missing person identification cases, analyzed with an MPS based method comprising 131 SNP markers and compared with direct reference material or buccal swab samples collected from relatives of the deceased. We assess the weight of evidence of a match by statistical calculation. Furthermore, we compare results reported on different platforms using different SNP panels, and conclude that more work has to be done if results from missing person identification cases analyzed on MPS with SNP panels at different laboratories are to be fully reliable and thus comparable.
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.