ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2026
Technical reliability of genotyping SNPs for forensic DNA phenotyping using SNaPshot- and MPS-based assays.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Current state: Assessing DNA results considering transfer.Forensic science international. Synergy · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, several countries have undergone changes in their legal framework, now explicitly allowing the analysis of genetic markers for the purpose of forensic DNA phenotyping (FDP). Consequently, laboratory workflows for the analysis of appearance informative single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have been established in several laboratories. Currently, the HIrisPlex-S marker panel and webtool are the most widely used set of appearance informative SNP markers and statistical model used for phenotype predictions. However, many different laboratory protocols are employed for SNP genotyping, mostly using either massive parallel sequencing or single base extension technology. For the GEDNAP and TrACE proficiency tests, FDP modules were introduced in 2021 and 2023. These represented the first instances in which identical samples were analyzed by a fairly large number of laboratories, each of them employing their own laboratory-validated protocol. While mostly consistent phenotyping results were obtained, discrepant genotyping results were observed for some of the analyzed HIrisPlex-S-SNPs in BNC2, OCA2, and TYR. By performing a systematic in-silico analysis of commonly used primer sequences and sequencing the flanking regions of target SNPs in the affected samples from the collaborative exercises, we were able to identify primer binding site mutations, amplification of off-target products and overlap of SBE primers as risk factors for (analysis method-dependent) genotyping discrepancies. While the impact on phenotyping results was minor to negligible in all cases reported here, the issues uncovered by this in-depth analysis may provide a basis for improvements towards more consistent results in the future.
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.