Proficiency Test on mtDNA GHEP-ISFG 2006

//Proficiency Test on mtDNA GHEP-ISFG 2006
Proficiency Test on mtDNA GHEP-ISFG 2006 2017-06-10T11:01:52+00:00

Prieto L., Alonso A., Alves C., Crespillo M., Montesino M., Picornell A., Brehm A., Ramírez J. L., Whittle M. R., Anjos M. J., Boschi I., Buj J., Cerezo M., Cardoso S., Cicarelli R., Comas D., Corach D., Doutremepuich C., Espinheira R.M., Fernández-Fernández I., Filippini S., Garcia-Hirschfeld J., González A., Heinrichs B., Hernández A., Leite F. P. N., Lizarazo R.P., López-Parra A. M., López-Soto M., Lorente J.A., Mechoso B., Navarro I., Pagano S., Pestano J.J., Puente J., Raimondi E., Rodríguez-Quesada A., Terra-Pinheiro M.F., Vidal-Rioja L., Vullo C., Salas A. 2006 GEP-ISFG collaborative exercise on mtDNA. Reflections about interpretation, artefacts, and DNA mixtures. Forensic Science International Genetics (2008), vol. 2 (2): 126-133.

We report the results of the seventh edition of the GEP-ISFG mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) collaborative exercise. The samples submitted to the participant laboratories were blood stains from a maternity case and simulated forensic samples, including a case of mixture. The success rate for the blood stains was moderate (77%); even though four inexperienced laboratories concentrated about one-third of the total errors. A similar success was obtained for the analysis of mixed samples (78.8% for a hair–saliva mixture and 69.2% for a saliva–saliva mixture). Two laboratories also dissected the haplotypes contributing to the saliva–saliva mixture. Most of the errors were due to reading problems and misinterpretation of electropherograms, demonstrating once more that the lack of a solid devised experimental approach is the main cause of error in mtDNA testing.