Commentary on: Thompson WC. Uncertainty in probabilistic genotyping of low template DNA: a case study comparing STRmix? and TrueAllele?

Journal of Forensic SciencesEarly View LETTER TO THE EDITOR Commentary on: Thompson WC. Uncertainty in probabilistic genotyping of low template DNA: a case study comparing STRmix™ and TrueAllele™. J Forensic Sci. 2023;68 (3):1049–63. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.15225 Tim Kalafut PhD, Tim Kalafut PhD Department of Forensic Science, College of Criminal Justice, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas, USASearch for more papers by this authorJames M. Curran PhD, James M. Curran PhD Department of Statistics, University of Auckland, Auckland, New ZealandSearch for more papers by this authorMichael D. Coble PhD, Michael D. Coble PhD Department of Microbiology, Immunology, and Genetics, Center for Human Identification, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, Texas, USASearch for more papers by this authorJohn Buckleton DSc, Corresponding Author John Buckleton DSc [email protected] Department of Statistics, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand Institute of Environmental Science and Research Limited, Auckland, New Zealand Correspondence John Buckleton, Institute of Environmental Science and Research Limited, Private Bag 92021, Auckland 1142, New Zealand. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author Tim Kalafut PhD, Tim Kalafut PhD Department of Forensic Science, College of Criminal Justice, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas, USASearch for more papers by this authorJames M. Curran PhD, James M. Curran PhD Department of Statistics, University of Auckland, Auckland, New ZealandSearch for more papers by this authorMichael D. Coble PhD, Michael D. Coble PhD Department of Microbiology, Immunology, and Genetics, Center for Human Identification, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, Texas, USASearch for more papers by this authorJohn Buckleton DSc, Corresponding Author John Buckleton DSc [email protected] Department of Statistics, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand Institute of Environmental Science and Research Limited, Auckland, New Zealand Correspondence John Buckleton, Institute of Environmental Science and Research Limited, Private Bag 92021, Auckland 1142, New Zealand. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author First published: 25 October 2023 https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.15405Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat REFERENCES 1Thompson WC. Uncertainty in probabilistic genotyping of low template DNA: a case study comparing STRmix™ and TrueAllele™. J Forensic Sci. 2023; 68(3): 1049–1063. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.15225 10.1111/1556-4029.15225 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 2Riman S, Iyer H, Vallone PM. Examining performance and likelihood ratios for two likelihood ratio systems using the PROVEDIt dataset. PloS One. 2021; 16(9):e0256714. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256714 10.1371/journal.pone.0256714 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 3Buckleton J, Bright J-A, Taylor D, Wivell R, Bleka Ø, Gill P, et al. Re: Riman et al. Examining performance and likelihood ratios for two likelihood ratio systems using the PROVEDIt dataset. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2022; 59:102709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2022.102709 10.1016/j.fsigen.2022.102709 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 4Ramos D, Meuwly D, Haraksim R, Berger CEH. Validation of forensic automatic likelihood ratio methods. In: D Banks, K Kafadar, D Kaye, M Tackett, editors. Handbook of forensic statistics. Boca Raton, Fl: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2020. 10.1201/9780367527709-7 Google Scholar 5Buckleton JS, Kruijver M, Curran J, Bright J-A. Calibration of STRmix LRs following the method of Hannig et al. Institute of Environmental Science and Research. 2020 https://research.esr.cri.nz/articles/report/Calibration_of_STRmix_LRs_following_the_method_of_Hannig_et_al_/12324011. Accessed 05 Oct 2023 Google Scholar 6Bright J-A, Jones Dukes M, Pugh SN, Evett IW, Buckleton JS. Applying calibration to LRs produced by a DNA interpretation software. Aus J Forensic Sci. 2021; 53(2): 147–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2019.1682668 10.1080/00450618.2019.1682668 Web of Science®Google Scholar 7Russell L, Cooper S, Wivell R, Kerr Z, Taylor D, Buckleton J, et al. A guide to results and diagnostics within a STRmix™ report. WIREs Forensic Sci. 2019; 1(6):e1354. https://doi.org/10.1002/wfs2.1354 10.1002/wfs2.1354 Google Scholar 8Bright J-A, Richards R, Kruijver M, Kelly H, McGovern C, Magee A, et al. Internal validation of STRmix™ – a multi laboratory response to PCAST. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2018; 34: 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.01.003 10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.01.003 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 9Biedermann A, Taroni F, Thompson WC. Using graphical probability analysis (Bayes nets) to evaluate a conditional DNA inclusion. Law Probab Risk. 2011; 10(2): 89–121. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgr007 10.1093/lpr/mgr007 Google Scholar 10Slooten K, Caliebe A. Contributors are a nuisance (parameter) for DNA mixture evidence evaluation. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2018; 37: 116–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.05.004 10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.05.004 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 11McGovern C, Bright J-A, Buckleton J, Taylor D. Examination of a novel method to allow for a range in the number of contributors to a DNA profile: a key area of subjectivity in DNA evidence interpretation. Proceedings of the 26th international symposium of human identification. Grapevine, TX. Madison, WI: Promega Corporation; 2015 https://scv10mr-cdnpre-p-cus-00.azureedge.net/-/media/files/products-and-services/genetic-identity/ishi-26-oral-abstracts/14-mcgovern.pdf?rev=767064bfd91b4b70b755bfbcae5f1a3f&_gl=1*1mdvymo*_ga*NjA2NTY2OS4xNjkxMzQ0Mzkx*_ga_3KTGR4JGE1*MTY5MTM0NDM5MC4xLjAuMTY5MTM0NDM5Mi42MC4wLjA. Accessed 05 Oct 2023 Google Scholar 12Taylor D, Bright J-A, Buckleton J. Interpreting forensic DNA profiling evidence without specifying the number of contributors. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2014; 13: 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.08.014 10.1016/j.fsigen.2014.08.014 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 13 Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods. Recommendations of the SWGDAM Ad Hoc Working Group on genotyping results reported as likelihood ratios. 2018 https://www.swgdam.org/_files/ugd/4344b0_dd5221694d1448588dcd0937738c9e46.pdf. Accessed 05 Oct 2023 Google Scholar 14Taroni F, Bozza S, Biedermann A, Aitken C. Dismissal of the illusion of uncertainty in the assessment of a likelihood ratio. Law Probab Risk. 2015; 15(1): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgv008 10.1093/lpr/mgv008 Web of Science®Google Scholar 15Meester R, Slooten K. Probability and forensic evidence: theory, philosophy, and applications. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press; 2021. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108596176 10.1017/9781108596176 Google Scholar 16Berger CEH, Slooten K. The LR does not exist. Sci Justice. 2016; 56(5): 388–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2016.06.005 10.1016/j.scijus.2016.06.005 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 17Thompson W. Painting the target around the matching profile: the Texas sharpshooter fallacy in forensic DNA interpretation. Law Probab Risk. 2009; 8: 257–276. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgp013 10.1093/lpr/mgp013 Google Scholar Early ViewOnline Version of Record before inclusion in an issue ReferencesRelatedInformation