Cargando…
The risk of false inclusion of a relative in parentage testing – an in silico population study
AIM: To investigate the potential of false inclusion of a close genetic relative in paternity testing by using computer generated families. METHODS: 10 000 computer-simulated families over three generations were generated based on genotypes using 15 short tandem repeat loci. These data were used in...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Croatian Medical Schools
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3692333/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23771756 http://dx.doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2013.54.257 |
_version_ | 1782274598999425024 |
---|---|
author | Lee, James Chun-I Tsai, Li-Chin Chu, Pao-Ching Lin, Yen-Yang Lin, Chun-Yen Huang, Tsun-Ying Yu, Yu-Jen Linacre, Adrian Hsieh, Hsing-Mei |
author_facet | Lee, James Chun-I Tsai, Li-Chin Chu, Pao-Ching Lin, Yen-Yang Lin, Chun-Yen Huang, Tsun-Ying Yu, Yu-Jen Linacre, Adrian Hsieh, Hsing-Mei |
author_sort | Lee, James Chun-I |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIM: To investigate the potential of false inclusion of a close genetic relative in paternity testing by using computer generated families. METHODS: 10 000 computer-simulated families over three generations were generated based on genotypes using 15 short tandem repeat loci. These data were used in assessing the probability of inclusion or exclusion of paternity when the father is actually a sibling, grandparent, uncle, half sibling, cousin, or a random male. Further, we considered a duo case where the mother’s DNA type was not available and a trio case including the mother’s profile. RESULTS: The data showed that the duo scenario had the highest and lowest false inclusion rates when considering a sibling (19.03 ± 0.77%) and a cousin (0.51 ± 0.14%) as the father, respectively; and the rate when considering a random male was much lower (0.04 ± 0.04%). The situation altered slightly with a trio case where the highest rate (0.56 ± 0.15%) occurred when a paternal uncle was considered as the father, and the lowest rate (0.03 ± 0.03%) occurred when a cousin was considered as the father. We also report on the distribution of the numbers for non-conformity (non-matching loci) where the father is a close genetic relative. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight the risk of false inclusion in parentage testing. These data provide a valuable reference when incorporating either a mutation in the father’s DNA type or if a close relative is included as being the father; particularly when there are varying numbers of non-matching loci. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3692333 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | Croatian Medical Schools |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-36923332013-06-27 The risk of false inclusion of a relative in parentage testing – an in silico population study Lee, James Chun-I Tsai, Li-Chin Chu, Pao-Ching Lin, Yen-Yang Lin, Chun-Yen Huang, Tsun-Ying Yu, Yu-Jen Linacre, Adrian Hsieh, Hsing-Mei Croat Med J Forensic Science AIM: To investigate the potential of false inclusion of a close genetic relative in paternity testing by using computer generated families. METHODS: 10 000 computer-simulated families over three generations were generated based on genotypes using 15 short tandem repeat loci. These data were used in assessing the probability of inclusion or exclusion of paternity when the father is actually a sibling, grandparent, uncle, half sibling, cousin, or a random male. Further, we considered a duo case where the mother’s DNA type was not available and a trio case including the mother’s profile. RESULTS: The data showed that the duo scenario had the highest and lowest false inclusion rates when considering a sibling (19.03 ± 0.77%) and a cousin (0.51 ± 0.14%) as the father, respectively; and the rate when considering a random male was much lower (0.04 ± 0.04%). The situation altered slightly with a trio case where the highest rate (0.56 ± 0.15%) occurred when a paternal uncle was considered as the father, and the lowest rate (0.03 ± 0.03%) occurred when a cousin was considered as the father. We also report on the distribution of the numbers for non-conformity (non-matching loci) where the father is a close genetic relative. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight the risk of false inclusion in parentage testing. These data provide a valuable reference when incorporating either a mutation in the father’s DNA type or if a close relative is included as being the father; particularly when there are varying numbers of non-matching loci. Croatian Medical Schools 2013-06 /pmc/articles/PMC3692333/ /pubmed/23771756 http://dx.doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2013.54.257 Text en Copyright © 2013 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 | Forensic Science Lee, James Chun-I Tsai, Li-Chin Chu, Pao-Ching Lin, Yen-Yang Lin, Chun-Yen Huang, Tsun-Ying Yu, Yu-Jen Linacre, Adrian Hsieh, Hsing-Mei The risk of false inclusion of a relative in parentage testing – an in silico population study |
title | The risk of false inclusion of a relative in parentage testing – an in silico population study |
title_full | The risk of false inclusion of a relative in parentage testing – an in silico population study |
title_fullStr | The risk of false inclusion of a relative in parentage testing – an in silico population study |
title_full_unstemmed | The risk of false inclusion of a relative in parentage testing – an in silico population study |
title_short | The risk of false inclusion of a relative in parentage testing – an in silico population study |
title_sort | risk of false inclusion of a relative in parentage testing – an in silico population study |
topic | Forensic Science |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3692333/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23771756 http://dx.doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2013.54.257 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT leejameschuni theriskoffalseinclusionofarelativeinparentagetestinganinsilicopopulationstudy AT tsailichin theriskoffalseinclusionofarelativeinparentagetestinganinsilicopopulationstudy AT chupaoching theriskoffalseinclusionofarelativeinparentagetestinganinsilicopopulationstudy AT linyenyang theriskoffalseinclusionofarelativeinparentagetestinganinsilicopopulationstudy AT linchunyen theriskoffalseinclusionofarelativeinparentagetestinganinsilicopopulationstudy AT huangtsunying theriskoffalseinclusionofarelativeinparentagetestinganinsilicopopulationstudy AT yuyujen theriskoffalseinclusionofarelativeinparentagetestinganinsilicopopulationstudy AT linacreadrian theriskoffalseinclusionofarelativeinparentagetestinganinsilicopopulationstudy AT hsiehhsingmei theriskoffalseinclusionofarelativeinparentagetestinganinsilicopopulationstudy AT leejameschuni riskoffalseinclusionofarelativeinparentagetestinganinsilicopopulationstudy AT tsailichin riskoffalseinclusionofarelativeinparentagetestinganinsilicopopulationstudy AT chupaoching riskoffalseinclusionofarelativeinparentagetestinganinsilicopopulationstudy AT linyenyang riskoffalseinclusionofarelativeinparentagetestinganinsilicopopulationstudy AT linchunyen riskoffalseinclusionofarelativeinparentagetestinganinsilicopopulationstudy AT huangtsunying riskoffalseinclusionofarelativeinparentagetestinganinsilicopopulationstudy AT yuyujen riskoffalseinclusionofarelativeinparentagetestinganinsilicopopulationstudy AT linacreadrian riskoffalseinclusionofarelativeinparentagetestinganinsilicopopulationstudy AT hsiehhsingmei riskoffalseinclusionofarelativeinparentagetestinganinsilicopopulationstudy |