ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2026
Development and validation of a STR and SNP multiplex detection system (88 STRs and 348 SNPs) using massively parallel sequencing.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2026. 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.
- Geographical distribution and seasonality of insect species and gut microbiota of fly larvae from 65 real cases in China.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Beyond the Core: The Role of Supplementary Short Tandem Repeats in Forensic Genetics.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Application of RNA markers in forensic body fluid analysis: from specificity and stability to polymorphism.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Short tandem repeats (STRs) have long been the gold standard in forensic DNA analysis, while single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have increasingly emerged as valuable complementary markers. The advent of massively parallel sequencing (MPS) technology has significantly enhanced the detection resolution of both STRs and SNPs, providing novel approaches for forensic human identification. In this study, we developed and validated a comprehensive multiplex detection system utilizing MPS technology, which enabled the concurrent analyses of 88 STRs and 348 SNPs. Following the SWGDAM guidelines, validation studies were conducted to assess the forensic applicability of the system. Sensitivity study revealed that 100% STR profiles could be obtained from ≥ 0.125 ng, and 100% SNP profiles were achieved with ≥ 0.0625 ng. The panel showed high accuracy, achieving a 99.78% concordance rate with conventional capillary electrophoresis (CE) DNA profiles. The system exhibited robust performance in the presence of four common PCR inhibitors (including humic acid, melanin, indigo, and hematin). Additionally, 99.42% of STR genotypes and 100% of SNP genotypes were successfully obtained from degraded DNA shorter than 500 bp. Furthermore, across gender combinations in mixed samples, both STR and SNP markers performed robustly at 1:1 and 1:3 ratios. At extreme proportions, male-female mixtures (99:1) enable the detection of scarce minor contributors at Y-STR loci. For SNP loci, the ACR value serves as a key evaluative metric for distinguishing mixtures. ROC analysis of these SNP data yielded an AUC of 0.909. Population genetics analyses revealed that the cumulative power of discrimination (CPD) and cumulative probability of exclusion (CPE) both exceeded 0.999999, highlighting its extensive applicability and practical value in forensic genetics. This comprehensive validation study confirmed that the multiplex panel provided high sensitivity, accuracy, and reliability, representing a significant advancement in forensic DNA analysis methodology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41407971What 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.