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

A sensitivity analysis to determine the robustness of STRmix™ with respect to laboratory calibration

STRmix™ uses several laboratory specific parameters to calibrate the stochastic model for peak heights. These are modelled on empirical observations specific to the instruments and protocol used in the analysis. The extent to which these parameters can be borrowed from laboratories with similar technology and protocols without affecting the accuracy of the system is investigated using a sensitivity analysis. Parameters are first calibrated to a publicly available dataset, after which a large number of likelihood ratios are computed for true contributors and non-contributors using both the calibrated parameters and several borrowed parameters. Differences in the LR caused by using different sets of parameter values are found to be negligible

STRmix™ collaborative exercise on DNA mixture interpretation

An intra and inter-laboratory study using the probabilistic genotyping (PG) software STRmix™ is reported. Two complex mixtures from the PROVEDIt set, analysed on an Applied Biosystems™ 3500 Series Genetic Analyzer, were selected. 174 participants responded. For Sample 1 (low template, in the order of 200 rfu for major contributors) five participants described the comparison as inconclusive with respect to the POI or excluded him. Where LRs were assigned, the point estimates ranging from 2 × 10 <sup>4</sup> to 8 × 10 <sup>6</sup> . For Sample 2 (in the order of 2000 rfu for major contributors), LRs ranged from 2 × 10 <sup>28</sup> to 2 × 10 <sup>29</sup> . Where LRs were calculated, the differences between participants can be attributed to (from largest to smallest impact): This study demonstrates a high level of repeatability and reproducibility among the participants. For those results that differed from the mode, the differences in LR were almost always minor or conservative