ArticleForensic sciences research2022
An inter-laboratory study of DNA-based identity, parentage and species testing in animal forensic genetics.
Article in Forensic sciences research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Problems and Challenges with Analysis of Short Tandem Repeats (STRs) in Animal DNA.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- The Revolution of Animal Genomics in Forensic Sciences.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Recent advances in forensic biology and forensic DNA typing: INTERPOL review 2019-2022.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The probative value of animal forensic genetic evidence relies on laboratory accuracy and reliability. Inter-laboratory comparisons allow laboratories to evaluate their performance on specific tests and analyses and to continue to monitor their output. The International Society for Animal Genetics (ISAG) administered animal forensic comparison tests (AFCTs) in 2016 and 2018 to assess the limitations and capabilities of laboratories offering forensic identification, parentage and species determination services. The AFCTs revealed that analyses of low DNA template concentrations (≤300 pg/µL) constitute a significant challenge that has prevented many laboratories from reporting correct identification and parentage results. Moreover, a lack of familiarity with species testing protocols, interpretation guidelines and representative databases prevented over a quarter of the participating laboratories from submitting correct species determination results. Several laboratories showed improvement in their genotyping accuracy over time. However, the use of forensically validated standards, such as a standard forensic short tandem repeat (STR) kit, preferably with an allelic ladder, and stricter guidelines for STR typing, may have prevented some common issues from occurring, such as genotyping inaccuracies, missing data, elevated stutter products and loading errors. The AFCTs underscore the importance of conducting routine forensic comparison tests to allow laboratories to compare results from each other. Laboratories should keep improving their scientific and technical capabilities and continuously evaluate their personnel's proficiency in critical techniques such as low copy number (LCN) analysis and species testing. Although this is the first time that the ISAG has conducted comparison tests for forensic testing, findings from these AFCTs may serve as the foundation for continuous improvements of the overall quality of animal forensic genetic 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.