ArticleJournal of forensic sciences2022
Evaluating the suitability of current mitochondrial DNA interpretation guidelines for multigenerational whole mitochondrial genome comparisons.
Article in Journal of forensic sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Maternal lineage diversity based on mitochondrial DNA in a population sample from Mexico City.Molecular biology reports · 2025Article
- Past, Present and Future Perspectives of Forensic Genetics.Biomolecules · 2025Review
- Whole mitochondrial genome analyses of Han population from Shandong of China using massively parallel sequencing.Frontiers in genetics · 2024Article
- Article
- Recent advances in forensic biology and forensic DNA typing: INTERPOL review 2019-2022.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2023Article
- Evaluating the suitability of current mitochondrial DNA interpretation guidelines for multigenerational whole mitochondrial genome comparisons.Journal of forensic sciences · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Sanger sequencing of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region was previously the only method available for forensic casework involving degraded samples from skeletal remains. The introduction of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) has transformed genetic data generation and human identification using mtDNA. Whole mitochondrial genome (mtGenome) analysis is now being introduced into forensic laboratories around the world to analyze historical remains. Research into large pedigrees using the mtGenome is critical to evaluate currently available interpretation guidelines for mtDNA analysis, which were developed for comparisons using the control region. This study included mtGenomes from 225 individuals from the last four generations of the Norfolk Island (NI) genetic isolate pedigree consisting of 49 distinct maternal lineages. The data from these individuals were arranged into 2339 maternally related pairs separated by up to 18 meioses. Our results show that 97.3% of maternally related pairs were concordant at all nucleotide positions, resulting in the correct interpretation of "Cannot Exclude"; 2.7% of pairs produced an "Inconclusive" result, and there were no instances of false exclusion. While these results indicate that existing guidelines are suitable for multigenerational whole mtGenome analysis, we recommend caution be taken when classifying heteroplasmic changes as differences for human identification. Our data showed the classification of heteroplasmic changes as differences increases the prevalence of inconclusive identification by 6%, with false exclusions observed in 0.34% of pairs examined. Further studies of multigenerational pedigrees, however, are needed to validate mtGenome interpretation guidelines for historical case work to more fully utilize emerging advancements.
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.