Comments arising from WJ Thompson "Uncertainty in probabilistic genotyping of low template DNA A case study comparing STRmix and TrueAllele"

Thompson reports a comparison of data from STRmix and TrueAllele. The data he has arises from different inputs to the two software. If the input data are made more similar the outputs become more similar. Thompson argues that the Analytical Threshold, AT, should be varied in casework. This produced different LRs but the analyst would be left deciding what to do with these options. This cannot be based on the LRs but should be based on whether any movement in the AT adds reliable or unreliable data. This is how most laboratories set their AT in the first place. Hence it is pointless, and potentially dangerous, to experimentally vary the AT in casework. The profile is low level and shows at most three peaks. Thompson argues that LR results assuming that the number of contributors (NoC) is 2 or 3 should be reported. Uncertainty in NoC should be treated as a nuisance variable and summed out.Comment: 9 pages 1 figur

Internal validation of STRmix™ – A multi laboratory response to PCAST

We report a large compilation of the internal validations of the probabilistic genotyping software STRmix™. Thirty one laboratories contributed data resulting in 2825 mixtures comprising three to six donors and a wide range of multiplex, equipment, mixture proportions and templates. Previously reported trends in the LR were confirmed including less discriminatory LRs occurring both for donors and non-donors at low template (for the donor in question) and at high contributor number. We were unable to isolate an effect of allelic sharing. Any apparent effect appears to be largely confounded with increased contributor number

Study of CTS DNA Proficiency Tests with Regard to DNA Mixture Interpretation: A NIST Scientific Foundation Review

The National Institute of Standards and Technology has released a document entitled DNA Mixture Interpretation: A NIST Scientific Foundation Review for public comment. This has become known as the Draft NIST Foundation Review. It contains the statement: “Across these 69 data sets, there were 80 false negatives and 18 false positives reported from 110,408 possible responses (27,602 participants × two evidence items × two reference items). In the past five years, the number of participants using PGS has grown.” We examine a set of proficiency test results to determine if these NIST statements could be justified. The summary reports for each relevant forensic biology test (Forensic Biology, Semen, and Mixture) in the years 2018–2021 were reviewed. Data were also provided to us by CTS upon our request. None of the false positives or negatives could be attributed to the mixture interpretation strategy and certainly not to the use of PGS

A mixed DNA profile controversy revisited

Semaan et al. (J Forensic Res, 2020, 11, 453) discuss a mock case “where eight different individuals [P1 through P8] could not be excluded in a mixed DNA analysis. Even though … expert DNA mixture analysis software was used.” Two of these are the true donors. The LRs reported are incorrect due to the incorrect entry of propositions into LRmix Studio. This forced the software to account for most of the alleles as drop-in, resulting in LRs 60–70 orders of magnitude larger than expected. P1, P2, P4, P5, and P8 can be manually excluded using peak heights. This has relevance when using LRmix which does not use peak heights. We extend the work using the same two reference genotypes who were the true contributors as Semaan et al. (J Forensic Res, 2020, 11, 453). We simulate three two-donor mixtures with peak heights using these two genotypes and analyze using STRmix™. For the simulated 1:1 mixture, one of the non-donors’ LRs supported him being a contributor when no conditioning was used. When considered in combination with any other potential donors (i.e., with conditioning), this non-donor was correctly eliminated. For the 3:1 mixture, all results correctly supported that the non-donors were not contributors. The low-template 4:1 mixture LRs with no conditioning showed support for all eight profiles as donors. However, the results from pair-wise conditioning showed that only the two ground truth donors had LRs supporting that they were contributors to the mixture. We recommend the use of peak heights and conditioning profiles, as this allows better sensitivity and specificity even when the persons share many alleles

Precision measurement of the structure of the CMS inner tracking system using nuclear interactions

The structure of the CMS inner tracking system has been studied using nuclear interactions of hadrons striking its material. Data from proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV recorded in 2015 at the LHC are used to reconstruct millions of secondary vertices from these nuclear interactions. Precise positions of the beam pipe and the inner tracking system elements, such as the pixel detector support tube, and barrel pixel detector inner shield and support rails, are determined using these vertices. These measurements are important for detector simulations, detector upgrades, and to identify any changes in the positions of inactive elements

Precision measurement of the structure of the CMS inner tracking system using nuclear interactions

The structure of the CMS inner tracking system has been studied using nuclear interactions of hadrons striking its material. Data from proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV recorded in 2015 at the LHC are used to reconstruct millions of secondary vertices from these nuclear interactions. Precise positions of the beam pipe and the inner tracking system elements, such as the pixel detector support tube, and barrel pixel detector inner shield and support rails, are determined using these vertices. These measurements are important for detector simulations, detector upgrades, and to identify any changes in the positions of inactive elements