4.5 Article

Development and validation of a custom panel including 114 InDels using massively parallel sequencing for forensic application

期刊

ELECTROPHORESIS
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/elps.202300044

关键词

forensic genetics; InDel; massively parallel sequencing; validation study

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A custom MPS InDel panel containing 114 InDels was developed and validated, demonstrating its robustness and application value in forensic studies.
Insertion/deletion polymorphisms (InDels) have particular characteristics, such as a relatively low mutation rate, small amplicon size, and no stutter artifacts when genotyped via the capillary electrophoresis platform. It would be an important complementary tool for individual identification and certain kinship analyses. At present, massively parallel sequencing (MPS) has shown excellent application value in forensic studies. Therefore, in this study, we developed a custom MPS InDel panel that contains 114 InDels [77 autosomal InDels (A-InDels), 32 X-chromosomal InDels (X-InDels), and 5 Y-chromosomal InDels) based on previous studies. To assess this panel's performance, several validation experiments were performed, including sensitivity, inhibitor, degraded DNA testing, species specificity, concordance, repeatability, case-type samples, and population studies. The results showed that the lowest DNA input was 0.25 ng. All genotypes were obtained in the presence of 80 ng/& mu;L humic acid, 2000 & mu;mol/L calcium, 3000 & mu;mol/L EDTA and indigo. In degraded DNA testing, 90% of loci could be detected for 16-day-old formalin-fixed hearts. In addition, this panel has good species specificity. The values of combined power of discrimination and the combined power of exclusion for 77 A-InDels were 1-3.9951 x 10-32 and 1-4.2956 x 10-7, respectively. The combined mean exclusion chance for 32 X-InDels was 0.99999 in trios and 0.99904 in duos. The validation results indicate that this newly developed MPS multiplex system is a robust tool for forensic applications.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据