ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2021
Exploring STR sequencing for forensic DNA intelligence databasing using the Austrian National DNA Database as an example.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A fully integrated and automated 24-sample microfluidic system for sample-in-amplicon-out forensic analysis.Microsystems & nanoengineering · 2026Article
- Autosomal STR Markers for Forensic Genetics: Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions.Genes · 2026Review
- Revisiting guidance on population sampling for highly polymorphic STR loci.Forensic science international. Genetics · 2026Article
- Concordance study on Y-STRs typing between SeqStudio™ genetic analyzer for HID and MiSeq™ FGx forensic genomics system.Molecular biology reports · 2023Article
- 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
- USAT: a bioinformatic toolkit to facilitate interpretation and comparative visualization of tandem repeat sequences.BMC bioinformatics · 2022Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Here, we present the results from a population study that evaluated the performance of massively parallel sequencing (MPS) of short tandem repeats (STRs) with a particular focus on DNA intelligence databasing purposes. To meet this objective, 247 randomly selected reference samples, earlier being processed with conventional capillary electrophoretic (CE) STR sizing from the Austrian National DNA Database, were reanalyzed with the PowerSeq 46Y kit (Promega). This sample set provides MPS-based population data valid for the Austrian population to increase the body of sequence-based STR variation. The study addressed forensically relevant parameters, such as concordance and backward compatibility to extant amplicon-based genotypes, sequence-based stutter ratios, and relative marker performance. Of the 22 autosomal STR loci included in the PowerSeq 46GY panel, 99.98% of the allele calls were concordant between MPS and CE. Moreover, 25 new sequence variants from 15 markers were found in the Austrian dataset that are yet undescribed in the STRSeq online catalogue and were submitted for inclusion. Despite the high degree of concordance between MPS and CE derived genotypes, our results demonstrate the need for a harmonized allele nomenclature system that is equally applicable to both technologies, but at the same time can take advantage of the increased information content of MPS. This appears to be particularly important with regard to database applications in order to prevent false exclusions due to varying allele naming based on different analysis platforms and ensures backward compatibility.
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.