ArticleHuman genomics2025
Establishment and validation of a DIP panel for forensic ancestry inference and personal identification.
Article in Human genomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genetic structure analysis of a Northwest Chinese population using a self-developed DIP system and machine learning for forensic ancestry inference.BMC genomics · 2026Article
- Performance of a self-developed panel for biogeographic ancestry inference and dissection of the genetic background of three Tibetan groups.Hereditas · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBiallelic Deletion/Insertion polymorphisms (DIPs), known for their significant diversity across various populations, serve as valuable markers for forensic ancestry inference and personal identification. In this study, we utilized DIPs to provide a potentially powerful forensic examination tool specifically tailored for East Asian populations. Our focus on ancestry allows us to delve deeper into the genetic signatures that characterize this diverse group, offering enhanced resolution in forensic analyses.
methodsA total of 56 autosomal DIPs, 3 Y-chromosome DIPs, and the Amelogenin were selected to build the 60-panel. Population genetic parameters, principal component analysis (PCA), STRUCTURE analysis, and phylogenetic tree construction were employed to evaluate the capacity for ancestry inference. The verification guidelines recommended by the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods were followed in the developmental validations of the 60-panel.
resultsThe PCA, STRUCTURE, and phylogenetic tree constructions were not only consistent with each other but also corroborated by previous research. The combined probability of discrimination and the cumulative probability of paternity exclusion values were 0.999999999999 and 0.9937, respectively. These values indicate that the 60-panel is not only a useful tool for personal identification testing within the East Asian population but also provides valuable biogeographic information. Furthermore, the validation study of the 60-panel, which included assessments of PCR conditions, sensitivity, species specificity, stability, mixture analysis, reproducibility, and case sample studies, as well as analysis of degraded samples, demonstrated that the panel is well-suited for forensic testing. The panel's performance was particularly notable in the analysis of degraded samples, showcasing its potential for use in challenging forensic cases.
conclusionThe newly developed 60-panel demonstrated robust performance in validation tests, yielding reliable genotypes even from poor-quality samples like degraded DNA. It offers valuable biogeographic insights and sufficient polymorphism for personal identification, which assisted forensic examinations in East Asian populations.
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.