Kinship Care Week webinar: How can professionals support kinship care families?
Kinship Analysis in Immigration Cases Charles H. Brenner, Ph.D. consulting in forensic mathematics...
-
Upload
bertina-powers -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of Kinship Analysis in Immigration Cases Charles H. Brenner, Ph.D. consulting in forensic mathematics...
Kinship Analysis inImmigration Cases
Charles H. Brenner, Ph.D.consulting in forensic mathematicsOakland, Californiahttp://dna-view.com
Outline
• I. Principles of analysis– Likelihood ratio comparing hypotheses
– comparing more than 2 hypotheses
• II. Computer demonstration– DNA·VIEW Kinship program
• III. Genetic anomalies• IV. Role of the laboratory
– attain requisite LR?
– answer questions, or ask them?
I. Principles of analysis
• Likelihood ratio comparing hypotheses– Paternity trio is the prototype– gotta be careful about treating it as archetype
Likelihood ratio(paternity trio)
• Two possible explanations of
• genetic Evidence: M=pr AF=qs C=pq
• LR = PI = P(E if H0) / P (E if H1)
– how much more typical E is of H0, than of H1
– (not how much more likely H0 is, than H1)
M
C
AFAFM
C
Explanation H0 (AF=father) Explanation H1 (AF unrelated)
Likelihood ratio(paternity trio)
• genetic Evidence: M=pr AF=qs C=pq
• LR = P(E if H0) / P (E if H1) = (2pr)(2qs)(¼) / (2pr)(2qs)(½q)
• shortcut to avoid today: Evidence: C=pq– LR = ¼ / ½q
M
C
AFAFM
C
Explanation H0 (AF=father) Explanation H1 (AF unrelated)
Daughter or unrelated?Explanation H0 (daughter) Explanation H1 (unrelated)
Resident
ReferenceApplicant
• genetic Evidence: M= pr Ref= ps Applicant= ps• LR = P(E if H0) / P(E if H1)
–P(E if H0) = P(E and F=ss if H0) + P(E and F=sx if H0) = (2pr)(s2)(½)(½) + (2pr)(2s(1-s))(¼)(¼) –P(E if H1) = (2pr)(s2)(2ps)(½) + (2pr)(2s(1-s))(2ps)(¼)
pr
pspsApplicant
Resident mother
Reference child
Man F (not tested)
• LR = (1+s) / 8ps
demo: DNA·VIEW derives LR formula
demo: DNA·VIEW derives LR formula
DNA·VIEW computes LR
KINSHIP
File: W:\meetings\AABB20~1\DAUGHTER.KIN Analysis mode: Co-dominant Autosomal
; AABB demo Nov 4, 2000; Is Applicant the daughter of Mother, or unrelated?Applicant/? : Mother + FredReference : Mother + FredApplicant psReference psMother prLikelihood ratio = 2.71 (1+s) / 8ps -- --Likelihood ratio:(1+s) / 8psLikelihood ratio = 2.71 (using p=0.2 s=0.3)
Daughter — or sister?Explanation H0 (daughter) Explanation H2 (sister)
Resident
Reference
ApplicantResident mother
Reference child
Applicant
• If H2 is true, probably can disprove H0
• If H0 is true, cannot disprove H2
–LR probably strongly against it though.• LR = 59,900. Forget about “sister”
»(or unrelated — LR > million)
demo: DNA·VIEW computes LR
demo: DNA·VIEW computes LR
DNA·VIEW computation of “daughter or sister” LR
Data for case 1204 2000/11/5 12:31 M Mother 2000-00001 c 2000/11/01 C Child #1 2000-00003 - 2000/11/01 D Child #2 2000-00004 - 2000/11/01Computation per race(s): cGenotype patterns are: THO1 TPOX CSF1PO D3S1358 VWA FGA D8S1179 D21S11 D18S51 D5S818 D13S317 D7S820 D16S539 M pq M p M q M qr M pq M pr M qr M pr M q M pq M pq M pq M pq C pr C p C pq C pr C p C qr C pr C qr C q C q C q C pq C qr D pr D p D pq D pq D pq D pq D pq D qr D pq D pq D pq D pr D pr
;D=daughter or sister of M C, D/? : M + Fred M, ?/D : Granny + Gramps(Caucasian frequencies)-- D=daughter or sister of MTHO1 11p15.5 PCR 2.73 (1+r) / (r+2pr) p=0.237 r=0.331TPOX 2p25-p24 PCR 1.31 2 / (1+p) p=0.528CSF1PO 5q33-34 PCR 3.8 (1+p) / (p+pq) p=0.251 q=0.309D3S1358 3p PCR 5.89 (1+p) / (p+2pq) p=0.126 q=0.256VWA 12p13.3 PCR 0.982 (1+p+q) / (1+p+q+2pq) p=0.131 q=0.0869FGA 4q PCR 6.28 (1+q) / (q+2pq) p=0.171 q=0.135D8S1179 PCR 9.81 (1+p) / (p+2pq) p=0.0761 q=0.221D21S11 PCR 4.21 (1+q) / (q+2qr) q=0.252 r=0.0894D18S51 18q21.33 PCR 0.857 1 / (1+q) q=0.167D5S818 PCR 0.869 (1+p+q) / (1+p+q+2pq) p=0.369 q=0.35D13S317 PCR 0.896 (1+p+q) / (1+p+q+2pq) p=0.305 q=0.307D7S820 7q11 PCR 0.764 1 / (1+2p) p=0.155D16S539 16q24 PCR 5.76 (1+r) / (r+2pr) p=0.107 r=0.167
cumulative LR 59900
DNA·VIEW data for LR example computations
Data for case 1204 2000/11/5 12:31 M Mother 2000-00001 c 2000/11/01 C Child #1 2000-00003 - 2000/11/01 D Child #2 2000-00004 - 2000/11/01Genotype patterns are: THO1 TPOX CSF1PO D3S1358 VWA FGA D8S1179 D21S11 D18S51 D5S818 D13S317 D7S820 D16S539 M pq M p M q M qr M pq M pr M qr M pr M q M pq M pq M pq M pq C pr C p C pq C pr C p C qr C pr C qr C q C q C q C pq C qr D pr D p D pq D pq D pq D pq D pq D qr D pq D pq D pq D pr D pr
lane 1 lane 3 lane 4 M C D locus ReadTHO1 2423 6,7 6,9.3 6,9.3 TPOX 2424 8 8 8 CSF1PO 2425 11 10,11 10,11 D3S1358 2426 15,16 14,16 14,15 VWA 2427 14,19 14 14,19 FGA 2428 21,25 24,25 21,24 D8S1179 2429 14,15 10,15 10,14 D21S11 2430 21,31.2 30,31.2 30,31.2 D18S51 2431 14 14 10,14 D5S818 2432 11,12 12 11,12 D13S317 2433 11,12 12 11,12 D7S820 2434 8,11 8,11 8,12 D16S539 2435 9,10 10,13 9,13
Daughter — or superniece?Explanation H0 (daughter) Explanation H3 (superneice)
Resident mother
Reference child
Applicant
• If H3 is true, likely can disprove H0
• If H0 is true, H3 likely also plausible.
Resident
Reference Applicant
• LR = 26.5. Maybe?
demo: DNA·VIEW computes LR
demo: DNA·VIEW computes LR
DNA·VIEW computation of “daughter or superniece” LR
;D=daughter or superniece of M C : M + Fred D : M/Sophie + Fred M,Sophie: Granny + Gramps(Caucasian frequencies)-- D=daughter or superniece of MTHO1 11p15.5 PCR 1.26 (2+2r) / (1+2p+r+4pr) p=0.237 r=0.331TPOX 2p25-p24 PCR 1.31 2 / (1+p) p=0.528CSF1PO 5q33-34 PCR 1.46 (2+2p) / (1+p+q+2pq) p=0.251 q=0.309D3S1358 3p PCR 1.27 (2+2p) / (1+p+2q+4pq) p=0.126 q=0.256VWA 12p13.3 PCR 1.69 (2+2p+2q) / (1+p+3q+4pq) p=0.131 q=0.0869FGA 4q PCR 1.45 (2+2q) / (1+2p+q+4pq) p=0.171 q=0.135D8S1179 PCR 1.36 (2+2p) / (1+p+2q+4pq) p=0.0761 q=0.221D21S11 PCR 1.65 (2+2q) / (1+q+2r+4qr) q=0.252 r=0.0894D18S51 18q21.33 PCR 0.857 1 / (1+q) q=0.167D5S818 PCR 1.16 (2+2p+2q) / (1+3p+q+4pq) p=0.369 q=0.35D13S317 PCR 1.24 (2+2p+2q) / (1+3p+q+4pq) p=0.305 q=0.307D7S820 7q11 PCR 0.799 (2p+2q) / (3p+q+4pp+4pq) p=0.155 q=0.195D16S539 16q24 PCR 1.61 (2+2r) / (1+2p+r+4pr) p=0.107 r=0.167
cumulative LR 26.5
Daughter — or sister-stepdaughter?Explanation H0 (daughter) Explanation H4 (incest)
Resident mother
Reference child
Applicant
• If H0 is true, H4 is plausible.
Resident
Reference
Applicant
• LR = 3.14 !?
demo: DNA·VIEW computes LR
demo: DNA·VIEW computes LR
DNA·VIEW computation of “daughter or incest” LR
;D=daughter or sister/stepdaughter of M? C : M + Fred M : Sophie + Fred D : M/Sophie + Fred(Caucasian frequencies)-- D=daughter or sister/stepdaughter of M?THO1 11p15.5 PCR 1.11 2 / (1+2p+r) p=0.237 r=0.331TPOX 2p25-p24 PCR 1.31 2 / (1+p) p=0.528CSF1PO 5q33-34 PCR 1.28 2 / (1+p+q) p=0.251 q=0.309D3S1358 3p PCR 1.22 2 / (1+p+2q) p=0.126 q=0.256VWA 12p13.3 PCR 1.03 (1+5p+q) / (1+4p+q+pp+5pq) p=0.131 q=0.0869FGA 4q PCR 1.35 2 / (1+2p+q) p=0.171 q=0.135D8S1179 PCR 1.32 2 / (1+p+2q) p=0.0761 q=0.221D21S11 PCR 1.4 2 / (1+q+2r) q=0.252 r=0.0894D18S51 18q21.33 PCR 0.75 1 / (1+2q) q=0.167D5S818 PCR 0.882 (1+p+5q) / (1+p+4q+5pq+qq) p=0.369 q=0.35D13S317 PCR 0.918 (1+p+5q) / (1+p+4q+5pq+qq) p=0.305 q=0.307D7S820 7q11 PCR 0.61 2 / (2+7p+q) p=0.155 q=0.195D16S539 16q24 PCR 1.45 2 / (1+2p+r) p=0.107 r=0.167
cumulative LR 3.14
I. Principles of analysis• Comparing more than 2 hypotheses
– LR=10,000,000 favoring “daughter” (H0) over “unrelated” (H1)
– LR=60,000 favoring “daughter” over “sister” (H2)
– LR=26 favoring “daughter” over “superniece” (H3)
– LR=3.14 favoring “daughter” over “incest” (H4)
• Hence comparing e.g. H4 vs H1 LR = 10,000,000/3.14
posteriorprobability
Hypoth daughter incest superniece sister unrelated
L(E if H) 10,000,000 3,000,000 400,000 170 1
prior 40% 4% 10% 20% 26%
L·p 4,000,000 120,000 40,000 34 <1
L·p/sum(L·p)) 96% 3% 1%
relativeprobability
Mother or Aunt?Ma vs Unrelated Aunt vs. Unrelated Ma vs. Aunt
general L (=X/Y) (L+1)/2 2 / (1+1/L)
locus 1 5 3 1.67
locus 2 100 50.5 1.98
locus 3 1 1 1
locus 4 0 0.5 0
locus 4m 0.001 0.5 0.002
overall 0.5 75 1/150
Likelihood ratios
III. Genetic anomalies
• Not co-dominant Mendelian inheritance
• Incidence per meiosis (paternal)– 1/500 for VNTR (excluding pH30, PAC425)– 1/400 for CODIS STR loci.
• Incidence per case – 1/100 for VNTR (5 locus assay)– 1/30 for STR (13 locus assay)
STR mutation rates
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006V
WA
FG
A
CSF
1P0
TP
OX
TH
O1
CO
DIS
ave
Pat'l (CHB/Fairfax))Pat'l (Brinkmann)Mat'l (Brinkmann)
THO1: 1/316 maternal
2 anomalous loci
• 2 “exclusions” so to speak– RFLP-VNTR
• 1 true paternity case per 25000
– STR • 1 true paternity case per 2500
• Immigration cases– may be more meioses/case
STR paternal inconsistencies
• Inconsistency is like “exclusion” except maybe we don’t exclude
• 1/400 inconsistent loci / true father – 1/500 one-step mutations– 1/20000 two-step mutations– 1/3000 null alleles (e.g. primer dropout)
Reasonable mutation model, STR’s
0%
25%
50%
-3 r
epea
ts
-2 r
epea
ts
-1 r
epea
t
prog
enit
or
+1
repe
at
+2
repe
ats
+3
repe
ats
s=steps from progenitor
Relative mutation probability
Suggested model:
s = /2 if s = 1
s = /20 if s = 2
etc.
where =total mutation rate.
Mutation LR (new, for STR’s)(revised from http://dna-view/gomera.htm#Mutation)
• Data: Mother=PS, Child=PN, Man=RÑ– Explanation #1: Paternity; RÑ N
• 50% chance transmit Ñ = chance Ñ mutates
• m = chance Ñ ends up as N, assuming mutation– m =0.5 if N, Ñ are 1 step apart
– m=0.05 if 2 steps, etc
– Explanation #2: Real father N
• LR= /(4q) (assuming single step) » q=allele frequency of the paternal allele N
IV. Role of the laboratory
• attain requisite LR?– immigration rules
• 99.5%+ (but “contact lab if inconclusive”)» at 50% prior? LR>200
» at case-specific prior? (“possible fraud patterns”) LR> ?
• “distinguish between family members”» need relationship-specific LR
» cannot substitute larger LR threshold for wrong question
• answer questions, or ask them?– advisory
• Comparing more than 2 hypotheses– LR=10,000,000 favoring “daughter” (H0) over “unrelated” (H1)
– LR=60,000 favoring “daughter” over “sister” (H2)
– LR=26 favoring “daughter” over “superniece” (H3)
– LR=3.14 favoring “daughter” over “incest” (H4)
• Hence comparing e.g. H4 vs H1 LR = 10,000,000/3.14
posteriorprobability
Hypoth daughter incest superniece sister unrelated
L(E if H) 10,000,000 3,000,000 400,000 170 1
prior 40% 4% 10% 20% 26%
L·p 4,000,000 120,000 40,000 34 <1
L·p/sum(L·p)) 96% 3% 1%
relativeprobability
LR target not a good criterion
Summary
• Principles of analysis– Likelihoods
– calculate % if priors are given
• Kinship program• Mutation up to 1/30 cases• Advisory role of the laboratory