Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35846115›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genetics2022

Evaluating the Impact of Dropout and Genotyping Error on SNP-Based Kinship Analysis With Forensic Samples.

Stephen D Turner, V P Nagraj, Matthew Scholz, Shakeel Jessa, Carlos Acevedo, Jianye Ge, August E Woerner, Bruce Budowle

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Stephen D TurnerSignature Science, LLC., Austin, TX, United States.
V P NagrajSignature Science, LLC., Austin, TX, United States.
Matthew ScholzSignature Science, LLC., Austin, TX, United States.
Shakeel JessaSignature Science, LLC., Austin, TX, United States.
Carlos AcevedoSignature Science, LLC., Austin, TX, United States.
Jianye GeCenter for Human Identification, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX, United States.
August E WoernerCenter for Human Identification, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX, United States.
Bruce BudowleCenter for Human Identification, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX, United States.
Signature Research (United States) · USUniversity of North Texas · USUniversity of North Texas Health Science Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Technological advances in sequencing and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping microarray technology have facilitated advances in forensic analysis beyond short tandem repeat (STR) profiling, enabling the identification of unknown DNA samples and distant relationships. Forensic genetic genealogy (FGG) has facilitated the identification of distant relatives of both unidentified remains and unknown donors of crime scene DNA, invigorating the use of biological samples to resolve open cases. Forensic samples are often degraded or contain only trace amounts of DNA. In this study, the accuracy of genome-wide relatedness methods and identity by descent (IBD) segment approaches was evaluated in the presence of challenges commonly encountered with forensic data: missing data and genotyping error. Pedigree whole-genome simulations were used to estimate the genotypes of thousands of individuals with known relationships using multiple populations with different biogeographic ancestral origins. Simulations were also performed with varying error rates and types. Using these data, the performance of different methods for quantifying relatedness was benchmarked across these scenarios. When the genotyping error was low (<1%), IBD segment methods outperformed genome-wide relatedness methods for close relationships and are more accurate at distant relationship inference. However, with an increasing genotyping error (1-5%), methods that do not rely on IBD segment detection are more robust and outperform IBD segment methods. The reduced call rate had little impact on either class of methods. These results have implications for the use of dense SNP data in forensic genomics for distant kinship analysis and FGG, especially when the sample quality is low.

Indexed as

forensic genetic genealogyforensicsgenealogykinshiprelatednessSNP

Identifiers

PMID35846115
PMCPMC9282869
OpenAlexW4283762393

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.