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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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