Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39336724›Full record

ReviewGenes2024

Applications and Performance of Precision ID GlobalFiler NGS STR, Identity, and Ancestry Panels in Forensic Genetics.

Sharlize Pedroza Matute, Sasitaran Iyavoo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
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

2 authors.

Sharlize Pedroza MatuteSchool of Natural Sciences, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincoln LN6 7TS, UK.ORCID 0009-0007-2088-1326
Sasitaran IyavooSchool of Natural Sciences, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincoln LN6 7TS, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0635-5753

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Short Tandem Repeat (STR) testing via capillary electrophoresis is undoubtedly the most popular forensic genetic testing method. However, its low multiplexing capabilities and limited performance with challenging samples are among the factors pushing scientists towards new technologies. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) methods overcome some of these limitations while also enabling the testing of Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs). Nonetheless, these methods are still under optimization, and their adoption into practice is limited. Among the available kits, Thermo Fisher Scientific (Waltham, MA, USA) produces three Precision ID Panels: GlobalFiler NGS STR, Identity, and Ancestry. A clear review of these kits, providing information useful for the promotion of their use, is, however, lacking. To close the gap, a literature review was performed to investigate the popularity, applications, and performance of these kits. Following the PRISMA guidelines, 89 publications produced since 2015 were identified. China was the most active country in the field, and the Identity Panel was the most researched. All kits appeared robust and useful for low-quality and low-quantity samples, while performance with mixtures varied. The need for more population data was highlighted, as well as further research surrounding variables affecting the quality of the sequencing results.

Indexed as

Forensic GeneticsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingMicrosatellite RepeatsHumansPolymorphism, Single NucleotideSequence Analysis, DNAancestry SNPsforensic geneticsGlobalFilerHID Ion AmpliSeqidentity SNPsmassively parallel sequencingnext-generation sequencingPrecision IDshort tandem repeatssingle-nucleotide polymorphisms

Identifiers

PMID39336724
PMCPMC11431077

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.