Download presentation

1
**Random Match Probability Statistics**

From single source to three person mixtures with allelic drop out

2
Statistics “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” –Benjamin Disraeli, British Prime Minister as popularized by Mark Twain 18.7% of all statistics are made up My introduction to forensics statistics…. It had been a loooooong time since sophomore genetics

3
**Heterozygote Alleles P and Q Could be PQ or it could be QP So… 2pq**

Where p is frequency of P And q is frequency of Q If p = 0.2 and q = 0.15, then 2(0.2)(.15) = 0.06 Most of us understood this pretty quickly

4
**Homozygote Allele P Above stochastic threshold So… p x p or p2**

But there’s that Θ business Most of us understood this pretty quickly too

5
**Homozygote You don’t use p2 Use p2 + p(1-p)Θ Where did Θ come from?**

But I understood that Use p2 + p(1-p)Θ I didn’t understand this Where did Θ come from? “It’s the inbreeding coefficient.”

6
**Homozygote OK, but where did p2 + p(1-p)Θ come from?**

“It’s the correction factor for inbreeding.” Not so helpful Why isn’t it just p2 – Θ?

7
**Homozygote We start with what we thought**

But some percentage is from inbreeding Correct for that amount of inbreeding Combine them p2 Θp (1-Θ) p2 +

8
**Homozygote Now it’s algebra Θp + (1 – Θ)p2 (inbred p + non-inbred p2)**

Θp + p2 – Θp2 (expand the terms) p2 + Θp – Θp2 (we like to see p2 term first) p2 + p(Θ – Θp) (pull out p) p2 + p(1 – p)Θ (pull out Θ to get final form)

9
**Single source stat Do the 2pq calculation at each heterozygous locus**

Do p2 + p(1 – p)Θ at each homozygous locus Then multiply the results for all loci

10
**Partial single source stat**

What if you don’t detect everything from a single contributor? Consistent with one contributor, but obvious there is a lot of drop out

11
**Partial single source stat**

No result No result Drop out ?? Drop out Drop out No result

12
**With a sample like this, would you**

Inconclusive data Exclude only Exclude or “inc a person” Exclude/include no stat Exclude/include stat for 2 allele loci Exclude/include for all loci with something detected Other 0 of 30 Countdown 30

13
**Partial single source stat**

Heterozygous loci still 2pq

14
**Partial single source stat**

What about loci that you don’t know about?

15
**Partial single source stat**

Any person that is a 9.3 could be the source How to calculate 9.3, Any?

16
**Partial single source stat**

The 9.3 could be a homozygote So p2 + p(1-p)Θ covers that But the 9.3 could be a heterozygote with any other allele So 2pq, but what is q?

17
**Partial single source stat**

You could go to the ladder 2(p)(q) p = 9.3 q = so 2(f9.3)(f4) q = so 2(f9.3)(f5) q = so 2(f9.3)(f6) ….. q = so 2(f9.3)(f13.3) Then add them up But what about off ladder alleles, microvariants, etc? How do you do 2pq for those?

18
**Partial single source stat**

Instead – if p is what you see (or detect) Then q must be what you don’t see (or detect) Since this is a binary system (What you see/detect) + (what you don’t) = 1.0 (what you don’t see) = 1 – (what you see/detect) So q = (1-p) Therefore 2pq becomes 2p(1-p)

19
**Partial single source stat**

Now just combine the homozygote and heterozygote options (p = f9.3) [p2 + p(1-p)Θ] + [2p(1-p)] for anyone with 9.3

20
**Partial single source stat**

What about loci that look like homozygotes? Use your PHR and stochastic threshold studies If you treat a locus as a homozygote, you better be above your stochastic threshold When in doubt, use Allele, Any – you’re covered At USACIL, Allele, Any = “modified” RMP

21
**Partial single source stat**

The “2p” rule Section –SWGDAM For single-allele profiles where the zygosity is in question (e.g., it falls below the stochastic threshold): The formula 2p, as described in recommendation 4.1 of NRCII, may be applied to this result. Instead of using 2p, the algebraically identical formulae 2p – p2 and p2 + 2p(1-p) may be used to address this situation without double-counting the proportion of homozygotes in the population.

22
**Partial single source stat**

2p is an extremely conservative approximation There is a better way 2p-p2 p2 + 2p(1-p) But this is even better p2 + p(1-p)Θ + 2p(1-p) (computers can calculate anything)

23
**Partial single source stat**

“Algebraically identical formulae” f9.3 = 2p –p p2 + 2p(1-p) 2(0.3054) - (0.3054) (0.3054)2 + 2(0.3054) ( ) (0.6946)

24
**Partial single source stat**

So for 9.3, Any 2p = 2p-p2 = p2 + 2p(1-p) = p2 + p(1-p)Θ + 2p(1-p) =

25
**Minor contributor stat**

26
**When the minor is probative, would you**

Inconclusive data Exclude only Exclude or “inc a person” Exclude/include no stat Exclude/include stat for some allele loci Exclude/include for all loci Other 0 of 30 Countdown 30

27
**Minor contributor stat**

For our purposes, it is an intimate sample from known female contributor Female is major Major would have a single source stat But isn’t probative Focus on the minor (or foreign) contributor

28
**Minor contributor stat**

Situations you need to be able to calculate When you know the minor type When you are concerned about drop out When you are not concerned about drop out, but you don’t know the minor type (masking/sharing) When you do not see any minor alleles, but still think the minor contributor is represented We haven’t discussed the last two yet

29
**Minor contributor stat**

When you know the minor type 10, 11 2pq 2(f10)(f11) 6, 9.3 2(f6)(f9.3)

30
**Minor contributor stat**

When you are concerned about drop out 24, Any p2 + p(1-p)Θ + 2p(1-p) (f24)2 + (f24)(1-(f24))Θ + 2(f24) (1-(f24))

31
**Minor contributor stat**

When you are not concerned about drop out, but don’t know the minor type What types are possible? 9, 9 8, 9 9, 11 “Combo stat”

32
**Minor contributor stat**

“Combo stat” 9 is above stochastic threshold 9, 9 8, 9 9, 11 Add them up p2 + p(1-p)Θ 2pq 2pr + + (f9)2 + (f9)(1-(f9))Θ + 2(f8) (f9) + 2(f9) (f11)

33
**Minor contributor stat**

Section SWGDAM When the interpretation is conditioned upon the assumption of a particular number of contributors greater than one, the RMP is the sum of the individual frequencies for the genotypes included following a mixture deconvolution. Examples are provided below. In a sperm fraction mixture (at a locus having alleles P, Q, and R) assumed to be from two contributors, one of whom is the victim (having genotype QR), the sperm contributor genotypes included post-deconvolution might be PP, PQ, and PR. In this case, the RMP for the sperm DNA contributor could be calculated as [p2 + p(1-p)] + 2pq + 2pr.

34
**Minor contributor stat**

35
**Minor contributor stat**

No minor alleles present, but you know the minor is contributing Every other locus has minor alleles Did the enzyme just get lazy? “Just inc the locus for stats” That doesn’t make any more sense than throwing out any other locus You just need the right calculator

36
**Minor contributor stat**

Two scenarios to consider No stochastic concerns Stochastic concerns Two slightly different stats, but can deal with both

37
**Minor contributor stat**

No stochastic concerns In some cases, PHR and P may help 17, 17 or possibly 16, 17 Maybe not 16, 16 But, you know minor must be: 16, 16 16, 17 17, 17 p2 + p(1-p)Θ 2pq This is the “combo” stat q2 + q(1-q)Θ + +

38
**Minor contributor stat**

Couple more definitions: “Unrestricted” RMP The “combo” stat where we used all possibilities 16,16 and 16,17 and 17,17 from previous slide “Restricted” RMP The “combo” stat where we chose not to use one (or more) possible types based on what fits peak heights, peak height ratios, or proportions of contributors 17,17 or 16,17 but not 16,16 from previous slide

39
**Minor contributor stat**

What if stochastic concerns? You would take anyone with 16, Any 17, Any But that has the 16, 17 counted twice Subtract 16, 17 But only once! (p2 + p(1-p)Θ) + 2p(1-p) (q2 + q(1-q)Θ) + 2q(1-q) – 2pq +

40
**Modified random match probability**

Let’s look at this “double any” calculation Simplify by removing Θ This is the basis for dealing with any number of “Allele, Any” contributors USACIL calls this a modified RMP because “Anys” are involved (p2 + p(1-p)Θ) + 2p(1-p) + p2 + 2p(1-p) + (q2 + q(1-q)Θ) + 2q(1-q) q2 + 2q(1-q) – 2pq – 2pq p2 + 2p(1-p) + q2 + 2q(1-q) – 2pq

41
**Modified random match probability**

Let’s say we’ve got a two contributor mixture with signs that both contributors are having stochastic issues. But what you see is consistent with two contributors Remember “Take a stand on the stand….” Validation studies, interpretation guidelines, your experience, Tech Review agrees…

42
**Modified random match probability**

We’ll start with this same pattern But stochastic concerns Homozygote threshold Mixture interpretation threshold Stochastic threshold Drop out threshold Lets just call it the “Danger Zone” Why do I always think of “Top Gun” when I have low peak heights? 16 230 17 260 (We’re not suggesting that you MUST do this - only that you can calculate it.)

43
**Modified random match probability**

Remember the “Allele, Any” 2pq = 2p(1-p) 2x(what you do see)x(what you don’t see) (We used it for a single allele below stochastic threshold for partial or minor contributor) Because we have two contributors: 16, Any 17, Any Or both or 16 230 17 260

44
**Modified random match probability**

Also, remember the “combo stat” for the combinations you can see p2 + 2pq + q2 We’ll rearrange this in a minute 16 230 17 260

45
**Modified random match probability**

Allele, Any for p (16) 2(what you see)(what you don’t) 2p(1-?) You “see” two alleles now Both p and q (16 and 17) Stick with “1 – what you see” for what you don’t see 2p(1-(p+q)) for p (16) Same thing for q (17) 2q(1-(p+q)) 16 230 17 260

46
**Modified random match probability**

So, the obvious combinations: “Combo” for visible The “Allele, Any” combinations: Allele, Any for the 16 Allele, Any for the 17 Add them up p2 + 2pq + q2 16 230 17 260 2p(1-(p+q)) 2q(1-(p+q)) + +

47
**Modified random match probability**

Here is the formula for multiple Allele, Any Now we rearrange that first part That last line should look familiar p2 + 2pq + q2 + 2p(1-(p+q)) + 2q(1-(p+q)) p2 + 2pq + q2 (p + q) x (p + q) (p + q)2

48
**Modified random match probability**

Remember back in the good old days? CPI stat For two alleles For three alleles … For nine alleles (p + q)2 (p + q + r)2 (p + q + r + s + t + u + v + w + x)2 CPI

49
**Modified random match probability**

Two ways to think about Allele, Any The way we derived it for that minor contributor The way that works for as many contributors as we may need They are equivalent (Remember we dropped Θ for the top one) (CPI math is the foundation for the bottom one, and doesn’t use Θ) [p2 + 2p(1-p)] + [q2 + 2q(1-q)] – 2pq (p + q)2 + 2p(1-(p+q)) + 2q(1-(p+q))

50
**Modified random match probability**

Expand this one (“Double” Allele, Any – duplicate) To get Rearrange the terms p2 + 2p(1-p) + q2 + 2q(1-q) – 2pq p2 + 2p – 2p2 + q2 + 2q – 2q2 – 2pq p2 + q2 + 2p + 2q – 2pq – 2p2 – 2q2

51
**Modified random match probability**

Now expand the other one (Multiple Allele, Any) To get Rearrange the terms Condense the 2pq terms (p + q)2 + 2p(1-(p+q)) + 2q(1-(p+q)) p2 + 2pq + q2 + 2p – 2p2 – 2pq + 2q – 2q2 – 2pq p2 + q2 + 2p + 2q + 2pq – 2pq – 2pq – 2p2 – 2q2 p2 + q2 + 2p + 2q – 2pq – 2p2 – 2q2

52
**Modified random match probability**

Now compare them: This was the “single source” one (2 slides ago) This is the “generic” form for multiple contributors (previous slide) p2 + q2 + 2p + 2q – 2pq – 2p2 – 2q2 p2 + q2 + 2p + 2q – 2pq – 2p2 – 2q2

53
**Modified random match probability**

Section SWGDAM In a mixture having at a locus alleles P, Q, and R, assumed to be from two contributors, where all three alleles are below the stochastic threshold, the interpretation may be that the two contributors could be a heterozygote-homozygote pairing where all alleles were detected, a heterozygote-heterozygote pairing where all alleles were detected, or a heterozygote-heterozygote pairing where a fourth allele might have dropped out. In this case, the RMP must account for all heterozygotes and homozygotes represented by these three alleles, but also all heterozygotes that include one of the detected alleles. The RMP for this interpretation could be calculated as (2p – p2) + (2q – q2) + (2r – r2) – 2pq – 2pr – 2qr. Since 2p includes 2pq and 2pr, 2q includes 2pq and 2qr, and 2r includes 2pr and 2rq, the formula in subtracts 2pq, 2pr, and 2qr to avoid double-counting these genotype frequencies.

54
**Modified random match probability**

To use RMP you must state the number of contributors Validation studies Experience Yadda, yadda Now that we know how to deal with drop out via Allele, Any, we can use RMP more often Modified RMP (modified denotes “Anys”) This is the language we use at our lab

55
**CPI compared to RMP But CPI is NOT the same as RMP**

CPI is used when you are unsure about the number of contributors Consequently, you have problems when you have alleles in the stochastic range – “Danger Zone” If you don’t know how many contributors you have, you don’t know how many alleles are missing

56
**CPI compared to RMP But we can use the CPI math in our RMP stat**

We must make two changes to the “base” CPI formula that we use in the RMP 1. We must correct for situations that change the number of contributors 2. We must account for allelic drop out We’ve been through that second, so let’s deal with the first

57
**CPI compared to RMP Consider a four allele pattern**

We interpret the overall profile as having two contributors. CPI considers all possible “visible” combinations of contributors (p + q + r + s)2 This includes P, P and Q, Q and R, R and S, S types

58
CPI compared to RMP But if you think you could have a P, P contributor, that leaves three alleles left We stated that there were only 2 contributors If Contributor #1 is P, P Contributor #2 cannot account for Q, R and S alleles Having a homozygote changes the assumption of the number of contributors

59
CPI compared to RMP So all we need to do is subtract the homozygotes – but only when the presence of a homozygote changes the number of contributors 2 contributors and 4 alleles detected 3 contributors and 6 alleles detected

60
**CPI compared to RMP Easy to do with a friendly computer**

USACIL defines this as an “Unrestricted” RMP We kind of think of it as a CPI stat corrected for a defined number of contributors (p + q + r + s)2 – p2 – q2 – r2 – s2 (p + q + r + s + t + u)2 – p2 – q2 – r2 – s2 – t2 – u2

61
**Unrestricted RMP Section 5.2.2.6 - SWGDAM**

The unrestricted RMP might be calculated for mixtures that display no indications of allelic dropout. The formulae include an assumption of the number of contributors, but relative peak height information is not utilized. For two-person mixtures, the formulae for loci displaying one, two, or three alleles are identical to the CPI calculation discussed in section 5.3. For loci displaying four alleles (P, Q, R, and S), homozygous genotypes would not typically be included. The unrestricted RMP in this case would require the subtraction for homozygote genotype frequencies, e.g., (p + q + r + s) 2 – p2 – q2 – r2 – s2.

62
**Modified random match probability**

Same thing for our “Allele, Any” situation No need to consider an “Allele, Any” if it changes the number of contributors It doesn’t matter how many alleles are below your stochastic threshold If you say there are 2 contributors and you detect 4 alleles, by definition there are no alleles missing Similar for 3 contributors and 6 alleles detected

63
**Modified random match probability**

About as bad as it can get 3 contributors All alleles are in the Danger Zone Each allele could be missing it’s sister allele (p+q+r+s+t)2 + 2p(1-(p+q+r+s+t)) + 2q(1-(p+q+r+s+t)) + 2r(1-(p+q+r+s+t)) + 2s(1-(p+q+r+s+t)) + 2t(1-(p+q+r+s+t))

64
**Modified random match probability**

GIANT DISCLAIMER!! We are not saying that you can charge ahead and now use any profile of any number of people with any number of alleles dropping out if you just use a modified RMP calculation Bad data is bad data It’s science, not Voodoo

Similar presentations

OK

Statistical weights of single source DNA profiles Forensic Bioinformatics (www.bioforensics.com) Dan E. Krane, Wright State University, Dayton, OH Forensic.

Statistical weights of single source DNA profiles Forensic Bioinformatics (www.bioforensics.com) Dan E. Krane, Wright State University, Dayton, OH Forensic.

© 2018 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google

Ppt on success quotes Ppt on nokia company profile Ppt on history of mathematics Ppt on eye os means Ppt on air pollution by gas turbine Ppt on south african culture facts Ppt online open channel Ppt on depth first search implementation Ppt on 9/11 conspiracy theory facts Ppt on national sports day