Cargando…
A novel strategy for sibship determination in trio sibling model
AIM: To use a virtually simulated population, generated from published allele frequencies based on 15 short tandem repeats (STR), to evaluate the efficacy of trio sibship testing and sibling assignment for forensic purposes. METHODS: Virtual populations were generated using 15 STR loci to create a l...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Croatian Medical Schools
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3429943/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22911526 http://dx.doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2012.53.336 |
_version_ | 1782241870922907648 |
---|---|
author | Lee, James Chun-I Lin, Yen-Yang Tsai, Li-Chin Lin, Chun-Yen Huang, Tsun-Ying Chu, Pao-Ching Yu, Yu-Jen Linacre, Adrian Hsieh, Hsing-Mei |
author_facet | Lee, James Chun-I Lin, Yen-Yang Tsai, Li-Chin Lin, Chun-Yen Huang, Tsun-Ying Chu, Pao-Ching Yu, Yu-Jen Linacre, Adrian Hsieh, Hsing-Mei |
author_sort | Lee, James Chun-I |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIM: To use a virtually simulated population, generated from published allele frequencies based on 15 short tandem repeats (STR), to evaluate the efficacy of trio sibship testing and sibling assignment for forensic purposes. METHODS: Virtual populations were generated using 15 STR loci to create a large number of related and unrelated genotypes (10 000 trio combinations). Using these virtual populations, the probability of related and unrelated profiles can be compared to determine the chance of inclusions of being siblings if they are true siblings and the chance of inclusion if they are unrelated. Two specific relationships were tested – two reference siblings were compared to a third true sibling (3S trio, sibling trio) and two reference siblings were compared to an unrelated individual (2S1U trio, non-sibling trio). RESULTS: When the likelihood ratio was greater than 1, 99.87% of siblings in the 3S trio population were considered as siblings (sensitivity); 99.88% of non-siblings in the 2S1U trio population were considered as non-siblings (specificity); 99.9% of both populations were identified correctly as siblings and non-siblings; and the accuracy of the test was 99.88%. CONCLUSIONS: The high sensitivity and specificity figures when using two known siblings compared to a putative sibling are significantly greater than when using only one known relative. The data also support the use of increasing number of loci allowing for greater confidence in genetic identification. The system established in this study could be used as the model for evaluating and simulating the cases with multiple relatives. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3429943 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2012 |
publisher | Croatian Medical Schools |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-34299432012-08-29 A novel strategy for sibship determination in trio sibling model Lee, James Chun-I Lin, Yen-Yang Tsai, Li-Chin Lin, Chun-Yen Huang, Tsun-Ying Chu, Pao-Ching Yu, Yu-Jen Linacre, Adrian Hsieh, Hsing-Mei Croat Med J Basic Science AIM: To use a virtually simulated population, generated from published allele frequencies based on 15 short tandem repeats (STR), to evaluate the efficacy of trio sibship testing and sibling assignment for forensic purposes. METHODS: Virtual populations were generated using 15 STR loci to create a large number of related and unrelated genotypes (10 000 trio combinations). Using these virtual populations, the probability of related and unrelated profiles can be compared to determine the chance of inclusions of being siblings if they are true siblings and the chance of inclusion if they are unrelated. Two specific relationships were tested – two reference siblings were compared to a third true sibling (3S trio, sibling trio) and two reference siblings were compared to an unrelated individual (2S1U trio, non-sibling trio). RESULTS: When the likelihood ratio was greater than 1, 99.87% of siblings in the 3S trio population were considered as siblings (sensitivity); 99.88% of non-siblings in the 2S1U trio population were considered as non-siblings (specificity); 99.9% of both populations were identified correctly as siblings and non-siblings; and the accuracy of the test was 99.88%. CONCLUSIONS: The high sensitivity and specificity figures when using two known siblings compared to a putative sibling are significantly greater than when using only one known relative. The data also support the use of increasing number of loci allowing for greater confidence in genetic identification. The system established in this study could be used as the model for evaluating and simulating the cases with multiple relatives. Croatian Medical Schools 2012-08 /pmc/articles/PMC3429943/ /pubmed/22911526 http://dx.doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2012.53.336 Text en Copyright © 2012 by the Croatian Medical Journal. All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Basic Science Lee, James Chun-I Lin, Yen-Yang Tsai, Li-Chin Lin, Chun-Yen Huang, Tsun-Ying Chu, Pao-Ching Yu, Yu-Jen Linacre, Adrian Hsieh, Hsing-Mei A novel strategy for sibship determination in trio sibling model |
title | A novel strategy for sibship determination in trio sibling model |
title_full | A novel strategy for sibship determination in trio sibling model |
title_fullStr | A novel strategy for sibship determination in trio sibling model |
title_full_unstemmed | A novel strategy for sibship determination in trio sibling model |
title_short | A novel strategy for sibship determination in trio sibling model |
title_sort | novel strategy for sibship determination in trio sibling model |
topic | Basic Science |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3429943/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22911526 http://dx.doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2012.53.336 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT leejameschuni anovelstrategyforsibshipdeterminationintriosiblingmodel AT linyenyang anovelstrategyforsibshipdeterminationintriosiblingmodel AT tsailichin anovelstrategyforsibshipdeterminationintriosiblingmodel AT linchunyen anovelstrategyforsibshipdeterminationintriosiblingmodel AT huangtsunying anovelstrategyforsibshipdeterminationintriosiblingmodel AT chupaoching anovelstrategyforsibshipdeterminationintriosiblingmodel AT yuyujen anovelstrategyforsibshipdeterminationintriosiblingmodel AT linacreadrian anovelstrategyforsibshipdeterminationintriosiblingmodel AT hsiehhsingmei anovelstrategyforsibshipdeterminationintriosiblingmodel AT leejameschuni novelstrategyforsibshipdeterminationintriosiblingmodel AT linyenyang novelstrategyforsibshipdeterminationintriosiblingmodel AT tsailichin novelstrategyforsibshipdeterminationintriosiblingmodel AT linchunyen novelstrategyforsibshipdeterminationintriosiblingmodel AT huangtsunying novelstrategyforsibshipdeterminationintriosiblingmodel AT chupaoching novelstrategyforsibshipdeterminationintriosiblingmodel AT yuyujen novelstrategyforsibshipdeterminationintriosiblingmodel AT linacreadrian novelstrategyforsibshipdeterminationintriosiblingmodel AT hsiehhsingmei novelstrategyforsibshipdeterminationintriosiblingmodel |