Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Fernanda Mariano Garcia
 -- 2661 2022-09-21 18:07:56 |
2 update references and layout
Amina Yu
 Meta information modification 2661 2022-09-22 03:46:52 |

Video Upload Options

We provide professional Video Production Services to translate complex research into visually appealing presentations. Would you like to try it?
No, upload directly Yes

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Garcia, F.M.;  Bessa, B.G.O.;  Santos, E.V.W.D.;  Pereira, J.D.P.;  Alves, L.N.R.;  Vianna, L.A.;  Casotti, M.C.;  Trabach, R.S.R.;  Stange, V.S.;  Meira, D.D.; et al. Forensic Applications of Markers Present on X Chromosome. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/27449 (accessed on 16 November 2024).
Garcia FM,  Bessa BGO,  Santos EVWD,  Pereira JDP,  Alves LNR,  Vianna LA, et al. Forensic Applications of Markers Present on X Chromosome. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/27449. Accessed November 16, 2024.
Garcia, Fernanda M., Bárbara G. O. Bessa, Eldamária V. W. Dos Santos, Julia D. P. Pereira, Lyvia N. R. Alves, Lucas A. Vianna, Matheus C. Casotti, Raquel S. R. Trabach, Victor S. Stange, Débora D. Meira, et al. "Forensic Applications of Markers Present on X Chromosome" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/27449 (accessed November 16, 2024).
Garcia, F.M.,  Bessa, B.G.O.,  Santos, E.V.W.D.,  Pereira, J.D.P.,  Alves, L.N.R.,  Vianna, L.A.,  Casotti, M.C.,  Trabach, R.S.R.,  Stange, V.S.,  Meira, D.D., & Louro, I.D. (2022, September 21). Forensic Applications of Markers Present on X Chromosome. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/27449
Garcia, Fernanda M., et al. "Forensic Applications of Markers Present on X Chromosome." Encyclopedia. Web. 21 September, 2022.
Forensic Applications of Markers Present on X Chromosome
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/genes13091597
The X chromosome is considered one of the most stable nuclear chromosomes, presenting a size length of approximately 155 million base pairs (Mb), accounting for nearly 5% of the human genome. The X chromosome has many characteristics that are not shared by its counterpart, the Y chromosome. In males, the heterogametic sex, there is a single copy of the X chromosome and a single Y chromosome, while in females, there are two copies of the X chromosome. These mammalian sex chromosomes are believed to have evolved from an ordinary pair of autosomes, referred to as the ancestral protosex chromosomes. The proto-X and proto-Y underwent a series of deletion/addition events during evolution and became the modern X and Y. Additionally, it is believed that a mutation in a sex-determining locus (SRY) is responsible for triggering an evolutionary process of stepwise loss of recombination between the ancestral autosome pair, creating an X-specific region and a Y-specific region in the proto-Y (MSY).
X chromosome short tandem repeats (X-STRs) X chromosome markers forensic genetics population genetics

1. X-Chromosome Markers

1.1. X-STR

Short Tandem Repeats (STRs) are DNA sequences with repeat units that are 2bp to 7bp in length, which are widespread throughout the human genome [1][2]. STRs show abundant variability among individuals in a population and have become useful for different purpose, including genetic mapping, disease diagnosis, linkage analysis and, in particular, for human identification [2][3].
Gomes et al. (2020) [4] suggest a number of characteristics that makes STRs the preferential markers in human identification analysis. First, they are highly polymorphic, resulting in high discrimination capacity between individuals; second, they are rapidly and easily analyzed using PCR-based technology and capillary electrophoresis automated fluorescent detection; third, STRs exhibit a multiplex generation capability, with short amplicon lengths for degraded DNA.
Furthermore, there is a Short Tandem Repeat DNA Internet Database (http://www.cstl.nist.gov/biotech/strbase/, accessed on 1 July 2022) [5] compiled and maintained by The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) since 1997. This database is an important resource that combines information from the literature with commonly used technologies and materials for STR DNA markers [3].
STR markers are not only autosomal, but also occur on the X and Y chromosome [6]. The utilization of X chromosomal STRs (X-STRs) can be valuable, as it may be used as an additional data source in complex cases where the analysis of autosomal markers is not informative. Therefore, X-STR can efficiently generate more information than autosomal STR, particularly in complicated kinship analysis [6][7][8][9].
X-STRs are highly standardized with numerous markers, methodologies, and databases, and there are commercial kits available on the market, for instance the Investigator Argus X-12 QS Kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany), that permit the analysis of 12 X-STR markers [4][8]. Moreover, Szibor et al. (2006) [10] created an X-STR online database (www.chrx-str.org accessed on 1 July 2022) including 55 X-STR so far, although only 15 X-STR have complete and extensive information available (DXS6789, DXS6809, DXS7132, DXS7133, DXS7423, DXS8378, DXS9902, DXS9898, DXS10074, DXS10101, DXS10134, DXS10135, GATA172D05, GATA31E08 and HPRTB) [9].

1.2. X-SNPs

Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are a single-base sequence variation highly abundant in the human genome. They may be present not only in genes (exons and introns), but also in the noncoding regions of the genome. SNPs are the most common type of genetic variation and may be used to aid in distinguishing individuals from one another. These polymorphisms are being used for linkage studies to track genetic diseases, for human evolutionary history studies, and they have also been considered as potential genetic markers by the forensic community [11][12].
According to Tomas et al. (2010) [13], the main advantages of including SNP in forensic analysis are the low mutation rates and the fact that it can be typed from small amounts of DNA, making them particularly useful in degraded DNA and difficult samples. However, there are significant disadvantages for SNPs when compared to STR markers. For example, to obtain equivalent match probabilities, it is necessary to analyze 40–60 loci of SNPs compared to 13-15 STR. Moreover, when there are sample mixtures, the interpretation by SNPs typing can be very difficult due to a limited number of alleles compared to multi-allelic STR markers [14]. Therefore, SNPs markers are most likely to have potential future in forensic application only to estimate ethnicity and to predict phenotypic characteristics [12][14].
Some efforts were made to analyze X-chromosomal SNP genotyping (X-SNP) in forensic cases to complement the analysis of autosomal, Y-chromosomal, and mitochondrial markers, especially in deficiency cases [7][13][15]. Although the use of X-SNPs in special relationship testing is promising, the interpretation is very complex and difficult, especially in mixed samples. Moreover, to elevate the combined power of discrimination, an increased number of X-SNPs are required, thus limiting the application of these markers in forensic cases, thus justifying the lack of interest in its use [4][13][15].
The FORensic Capture Enrichment SNP (FORCE SNP) panel, developed by Till-mar et al. (2021) [16], is a complete SNP panel applied in forensic cases. In this panel, clinically relevant markers are excluded, avoiding DNA database privacy concerns. It contains all relevant SNP markers for forensic applications, such as identity, ancestry, phenotype, and X and Y chromosomal SNPs. In addition, it features a new set of kin SNPs for inferring distant relationships (up to 4th degree relationship, with high statistical significance).
The FORCE panel includes features such as a relatively small size and a minimal number of primers/probes per reaction to reduce enrichment costs. The versatility of this panel is confirmed by the possibility of using enrichment methods such as hybridization capture, PEC, and multiplex PCR, allowing for the analysis of degraded samples. The inclusion of X-SNPs in the panel is due to their informative value of kinship for cases of specific X-chromosome inheritance, further enhancing the panel’s analytical performance [16].

1.3. X-INDELs

Insertion Deletion Polymorphisms (INDELs) are biallelic markers that combine the interesting aspects of both SNPs and STRs. INDELs have low mutation rates, they are widely spread throughout the genome, including along the X and Y chromosome, they have short amplicon size, making them easy and inexpensive to analyze, and they can be representative of differences between geographically distinct populations [17][18][19][20].
INDELs have received less attention than SNPs in forensic studies, but they may also be an important marker to complement STR analysis, increasing the identification success rating in cases of degraded DNA [21]. Two main studies [22][23] call attention to the applicability of INDELs that may be underutilized for genetic studies in forensic science [19].

2. Forensic Applications

2.1. Parenthood Testing

The inference of genetic kinship between two individuals has been a subject of great theoretical and practical interest in the forensic field [24]. With current technological advances, a specific demand for kinship testing is expected to arise where only remote relatives are available for testing [7], and there are a multitude of applications for paternity testing, such as the clarification of bilateral relationships [25], determination of kinship in immigration proceedings, and identification of parental lines [26].
In this way, the paternity test (PT) becomes a very important instrument for the advancement of forensic genetics in a wide spectrum of activities. However, it is worth noting the comparison of the main differences between the PT and the maternity test (MT), because, as for the PT, there is an understanding that the involvement of the mother’s genotype generates an increase in the power of identification of the biological father [25]. However, in the absence of maternal data, the exam may be inconclusive [27].
Insertion of markers based on STR sequences and mitochondrial DNA sequence variations linked to the analysis of sex chromosomes (X and Y) provide greater PT efficiency, with respect to autosomal markers [7][27]. Owing to the inheritance pattern of Chr-X, in which the daughter receives the unaltered paternal X chromosome, Chr-X markers have a high power of exclusion [8]. The X-STRs exclusion power is due to the difference in the number of alleles when compared to autosomal alleles in male individuals [28].
Because of these unique characteristics, X-STRs can satisfactorily complement cases in which the analyses of autosomal STRs are not sufficiently informative, as in father-daughter duo cases. Therefore, in these cases, the analysis of X chromosomal markers can be more informative than autosomal markers.
X-STRs can also be highly informative in cases of father-daughter paternity, where the alleged parents are father and son, as the analysis of autosomal STRs would be inconclusive due to the sharing of alleles. X-STRs inherited from their respective mothers and not shared with each other are very useful in such cases.
In addition, X-STRs can be used in cases of sisters or half-sisters whose common relative is the father. It is possible to observe a greater resolving power, since both, being daughters of the same father, necessarily share the same alleles.
Autosomal DNA markers can pose difficulties when they are physically close to each other on the same chromosome. For these reasons, it is worth highlighting the importance of software, such as FamLinkX, that implements a new algorithm for probability calculations that account for linkage, linkage disequilibrium, and mutations [29][30].
For this reason, such software becomes highly sought after among forensic users as more and more ChrX markers become available [30]. This is justified by its usefulness in calculating case-specific likelihood ratios for two (or more) hypotheses with observed DNA data for a pair of linked DNA markers. In also performs simulations for two or more pedigrees (hypotheses) and analyzes cases that give rise to complex pedigrees. In summary, such compilations of functionalities are now widely available, and are free of charge [31].
Moreover, following practices established through adoption and further characterization of X-STR typing and application will promote the development of additional tools, such as software that provides functions for the likelihood calculation of family relationships/pedigrees using X-chromosomal genetic marker data to facilitate their implementation into additional laboratories, providing a rich area for the future of forensic research.
Finally, autosomal STR typing is likely to remain the gold standard for the forensic laboratories well into the future, and X-STR markers have proven to be useful complementary tools in the forensic armory.

2.2. Incest

Incest is usually defined as mating between first-degree relatives, (such as father-daughter, mother-son, or brother-sister), who have 30–50% of their genes in common [32][33]. This definition, however, may be expanded with the addition of sexual activity between uncle-niece, grandfather-grandchild [34][35].
Children of consanguineous parents can inherit two alleles identical by descent (ibd) at any locus, show an increase in homozygous genotypes, and are at greater risk for autosomal recessive diseases [36]. Decreased population heterozygosity over the generations is expected in cultures which encourage consanguineous marriages between specific blood relatives (e.g., uncle-niece) [37].
In Brazil, as in many other countries around the world, incest in itself is not a crime. However, in cases where violence or serious threats are used, in which the act is performed with children under 14 years of age, with someone who, due to illness or mental disability, does not have the necessary discernment to perform the act, or who, for any other reason, cannot offer resistance, sexual activity can be considered the crime of rape, or rape of a vulnerable person. In these cases, legal interest arises, given the criminal nature of the act, and there is a need to make use of forensic DNA tools.
Vaginal and oral swabs are commonly collected shortly after the events when incestuous criminal activity is suspected, which may allow for the recovery of spermatic material from the suspect and the comparison of genetic profiles (victim-aggressor).
Child sexual abuse is a global public health concern considered by World Health Organization (WHO) as a silent heath emergency [38]. Victims of incest usually do not talk about the situation due to embarrassment, guilt, and fear. Thus, incest cases are rarely reported [39]. Moreover, the efforts of families to cover up incest cases is a well-known reality [37]. Thus, in many rape cases, sperm is not available from vaginal swabs, and the only resulting genetic evidence may be the products of conception [33]. Therefore, in cases where rape leads to pregnancy, it is possible to compare the genetic profiles of the alleged father, mother, and fetus.
In many circumstances, DNA profiling of autosomal STR loci can be reliably used for solving criminal and paternity cases focused on males [40]. Nonetheless, in those cases involving close blood-relatives as putative fathers, the exclusion power of autosomal STRs is considerably reduced, and ChrX (Chromosome X) STRs may be most appropriate [7]. For example, if two alleged fathers are father and son, ChrX markers would be more efficient than autosomal STRs, since father and son do not share any X-chromosomal alleles idb [37]. In some criminal paternity investigations, the high rate of homozygosity displayed by the child may raise the suspicion of an incestuous situation [4].
The analysis of the ChrX STR profile, in the case of a daughter, is quite informative, even in the absence of the genetic profile of the father. When the father of the daughter is also the father of the mother (father-daughter incest), the child will either be homozygous for all ChrX STR markers or will present the same genotype as the mother [4].
Considering that ChrX is maternally transmitted, the analysis of its STR is not useful in the case of criminal paternity tests in which the child is a boy, since he inherited a Y chromosome from his biological father. However, it can serve as a supplement in criminal maternity test cases.
The estimated frequency of incest ranges from 0.5 to 2%, [41][42][43] but estimates vary by definition and the method of determining cases [44]. Most victims of incest are minors [39], which ultimately makes the social and psychiatric consequences more serious. Thus, it is imperative that public authorities raise awareness in these cases and adopt multidisciplinary and specialized protocols for monitoring victims, especially younger ones, aiming at treatment and full rehabilitation [39].

2.3. Complex Cases Using X-STRs

In the last decades, autosomal STR markers have become the best option for most cases of genetic identification, paternity testing, and other kinship analysis. Despite their reliability and high power of discrimination, in some particular cases, autosomal markers provide little information, even with a high number of polymorphisms typed [45]. In these cases, the use of Y-STRs and X-STRs as additional markers by recombination [8][46], could provide more strength to the genetic evidence due to its inheritance characteristics and different recombination patterns [4]. Additional genetic information can increase the statistical values of true parental relationships in analysis and reduce the chances of false attributions [47].
ChrX markers have been rarely employed in forensic practices, although gonosomal markers are especially efficient for solving deficiency cases [48]. X-STRs are particularly useful in complex kinship cases, where just a few and/or distantly related individuals are available for genetic analysis [45], especially when the mother is absent. They are also used in some missing persons/mass disaster situations to identify victims, when direct reference samples are not available and biological relatives must be used [49]. Complex analysis involving singular materials, such as DNA from exhumed bones or historical samples (small number of low size STRs) [48] could also be aided by X-STRs data.
The scenarios when the presumed father is not available for genetic analysis using X-STRs is the most common type of complex kinship testing regarding financial inheritance disputes to prove the affiliation to the deceased alleged father [45]. The father will convey his ChrX copy to daughters only, and all sisters will share at least one allele per locus for the ChrX. In this context, the investigation of sisters or stepsisters can exclude paternity, even if the DNA of the parents is not available, by genotyping the putative grandmother [7].
X-STRs may also be a better choice in cases where the genetic material from different individuals is mixed. The male hemizygous status for X-STRs makes these markers more advantageous compared to autosomal markers [48]. In cases of abortion involving a female fetus, the DNA of the embryo and the mother are mixed, in which case, it is possible to perform a paternity test on the fetus, as alleles not shared with the mother can be analyzed [48].
Thus, X-STRs markers can be useful for any parent–child relationship that involves at least one female [50]. However, for closely linked markers, it is advisable to consider linkage and LD for the most precise likelihood calculation [8].

References

  1. Gill, P.; Bleka, Ø.; Hansson, O.; Benschop, C.; Haned, H. Forensic Genetics: The Basics. In Forensic Practitioner’s Guide to the Interpretation of Complex DNA Profiles; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 1–53.
  2. Butler, J.M. Short Tandem Repeat (STR) Loci and Kits. In Advanced Topics in Forensic DNA Typing; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 99–139.
  3. Ruitberg, C.M.; Reeder, D.J.; Butler, J.M. STRBase: A Short Tandem Repeat DNA Database for the Human Identity Testing Community. Nucleic Acids Res. 2001, 29, 320–322.
  4. Gomes, I.; Pinto, N.; Antão-Sousa, S.; Gomes, V.; Gusmão, L.; Amorim, A. Twenty Years Later: A Comprehensive Review of the X Chromosome Use in Forensic Genetics. Front. Genet. 2020, 11, 926.
  5. Short Tandem Repeat DNA Internet DataBase. Available online: http://www.cstl.nist.gov/biotech/strbase/ (accessed on 20 June 2022).
  6. Jia, J.; Liu, X.; Fan, Q.; Fang, C.; Wang, M.; Zhang, J.; Li, W.; Shi, L.; Zhang, X.; Chen, C.; et al. Development and Validation of a Multiplex 19 X-Chromosomal Short Tandem Repeats Typing System for Forensic Purposes. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 609.
  7. Szibor, R. X-Chromosomal Markers: Past, Present and Future. Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2007, 1, 93–99.
  8. Tillmar, A.O.; Kling, D.; Butler, J.M.; Parson, W.; Prinz, M.; Schneider, P.M.; Egeland, T.; Gusmão, L. DNA Commission of the International Society for Forensic Genetics (ISFG): Guidelines on the Use of X-STRs in Kinship Analysis. Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2017, 29, 269–275.
  9. Gusmão, L.; Alves, C.; Gomes, I.; Sánchez-Diz, P. Capillary Electrophoresis of an X-Chromosome STR Decaplex for Kinship Deficiency Cases. In DNA Electrophoresis Protocols for Forensic Genetics; Humana: Totowa, NJ, USA, 2011; pp. 57–71.
  10. Szibor, R.; Hering, S.; Edelmann, J. A New Web Site Compiling Forensic Chromosome X Research Is Now Online. Int. J. Leg. Med. 2006, 120, 252–254.
  11. Jian, H.; Wang, L.; Lv, M.; Tan, Y.; Zhang, R.; Qu, S.; Wang, J.; Zha, L.; Zhang, L.; Liang, W. A Novel SNP-STR System Based on a Capillary Electrophoresis Platform. Front. Genet. 2021, 12, 636821.
  12. Butler, J.M. Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms and Applications. In Advanced Topics in Forensic DNA Typing; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 347–369.
  13. Tomas, C.; Sanchez, J.J.; Castro, J.A.; Børsting, C.; Morling, N. Forensic Usefulness of a 25 X-Chromosome Single-Nucleotide Polymorphism Marker Set. Transfusion 2010, 50, 2258–2265.
  14. Butler, J.M.; Coble, M.D.; Vallone, P.M. STRs vs. SNPs: Thoughts on the Future of Forensic DNA Testing. Forensic Sci. Med. Pathol. 2007, 3, 200–205.
  15. Li, L.; Li, C.; Zhang, S.; Zhao, S.; Liu, Y.; Lin, Y. Analysis of 14 Highly Informative SNP Markers on X Chromosome by TaqMan® SNP Genotyping Assay. Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2010, 4, e145–e148.
  16. Tillmar, A.; Sturk-Andreaggi, K.; Daniels-Higginbotham, J.; Thomas, J.T.; Marshall, C. The FORCE Panel: An All-in-One SNP Marker Set for Confirming Investigative Genetic Genealogy Leads and for General Forensic Applications. Genes 2021, 12, 1968.
  17. Freitas, N.S.C.; Resque, R.L.; Ribeiro-Rodrigues, E.M.; Guerreiro, J.F.; Santos, N.P.C.; Ribeiro-dos-Santos, Â.; Santos, S. X-Linked Insertion/Deletion Polymorphisms: Forensic Applications of a 33-Markers Panel. Int. J. Leg. Med. 2010, 124, 589–593.
  18. Pereira, R.; Gusmão, L. Capillary Electrophoresis of 38 Noncoding Biallelic Mini-Indels for Degraded Samples and as Complementary Tool in Paternity Testing. In DNA Electrophoresis Protocols for Forensic Genetics; Humana: Totowa, NJ, USA, 2011; pp. 141–157.
  19. Fan, G.; Ye, Y.; Luo, H.; Hou, Y. Screening of Multi-InDel Markers on X-Chromosome for Forensic Purpose. Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. Suppl. Ser. 2015, 5, e42–e44.
  20. Chen, L.; Pan, X.; Wang, Y.; Du, W.; Wu, W.; Tang, Z.; Xiao, C.; Han, X.; Liu, C.; Liu, C. Development and Validation of a Forensic Multiplex System with 38 X-InDel Loci. Front. Genet. 2021, 12, 670482.
  21. Rodrigues, E.M.R.; dos Santos, N.P.C.; dos Santos, Â.K.C.R.; Marinho, A.N.; Zago, M.A.; Gomes, I.; Amorim, A.; Gusmão, L.; dos Santos, S.E.B. An INDEL Polymorphism at the X-STR GATA172D05 Flanking Region. Int. J. Leg. Med. 2009, 123, 89–94.
  22. Weber, J.L.; David, D.; Heil, J.; Fan, Y.; Zhao, C.; Marth, G. Human Diallelic Insertion/Deletion Polymorphisms. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2002, 71, 854–862.
  23. Mills, R.E.; Luttig, C.T.; Larkins, C.E.; Beauchamp, A.; Tsui, C.; Pittard, W.S.; Devine, S.E. An Initial Map of Insertion and Deletion (INDEL) Variation in the Human Genome. Genome Res. 2006, 16, 1182–1190.
  24. Pinto, N.; Gusmão, L.; Egeland, T.; Amorim, A. Estimating Relatedness with No Prior Specification of Any Genealogy: The Role of the X-Chromosome. Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. Suppl. Ser. 2013, 4, e252–e253.
  25. Nothnagel, M.; Schmidtke, J.; Krawczak, M. Potentials and Limits of Pairwise Kinship Analysis Using Autosomal Short Tandem Repeat Loci. Int. J. Leg. Med. 2010, 124, 205–215.
  26. Wenk, R.E. Testing for Parentage and Kinship. Curr. Opin. Hematol. 2004, 11, 357–361.
  27. Auler-Bittencourt, E.; Iwamura, E.S.M.; Lima, M.J.M.; da Silva, I.D.C.G.; dos Santos, S.E.B. Exploring the Applicability of Analysing X Chromosome STRs in Brazilian Admixed Population. Sci. Justice 2015, 55, 323–328.
  28. Martins, J.A.; Martins, D.P.; Oliveira-Brancati, C.I.F.; Martinez, J.; Cicarelli, R.M.B.; Souza, D.R.S. Genetic Characterization of an X-STR Decaplex System in the State of Mato Grosso, Brazil: Distribution, Forensic Efficiency and Population Structure. Int. J. Leg. Med. 2017, 131, 1523–1530.
  29. Kling, D.; Dell’Amico, B.; Tillmar, A.O. FamLinkX—Implementation of a general model for likelihood computations for X-chromosomal marker data. Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2015, 17, 1–7.
  30. Kling, D.; Egeland, T.; Tillmar, A.O. FamLink—A user friendly software for linkage calculations in family genetics. Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2012, 6, 616–620.
  31. Phillips, C.; Ballard, D.; Gill, P.; Court, D.S.; Carracedo, A.; Lareu, M.V. The recombination landscape around forensic STRs: Accurate measurement of genetic distances between syntenic STR pairs using HapMap high density SNP data. Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2012, 6, 354–365.
  32. Nishi, T.; Fukui, K.; Matumoto, S.; Takasu, S.; Iwadate, K. Polymorphism and Haplotype Analysis of Three Novel Short Tandem Repeat Loci in the P11.4 Region of Human X Chromosome. Int. J. Leg. Med. 2022, 136, 513–518.
  33. Jakovski, Z.; Jankova, R.; Nikolova Biol, K.; Spasevska, L.; Jovanovic, R.; Janeska, B. Forensic DNA Expertise of Incest in Early Period of Pregnancy. J. Forensic Leg. Med. 2011, 18, 34–37.
  34. Covington, C.H. Incest: The Psychological Problem and the Biological Contradiction. Issues Ment. Health Nurs. 1989, 10, 69–87.
  35. Yuksel, B.; Kilic, S.; Su, F.A.; Tasdemir, N.; Uzunlar, Ö.; Mollamahmutoglu, L. What Should the Management of Incest Pregnancies Be? An Ethical View Presented via Three Cases. Reprod. BioMed. Online 2008, 17, 52–54.
  36. Wenk, R.E. Incest Indices from Microsatellite Genotypes of Mother-Child Pairs. Transfusion 2007, 48, 341–348.
  37. Woods, C.G.; Cox, J.; Springell, K.; Hampshire, D.J.; Mohamed, M.D.; McKibbin, M.; Stern, R.; Raymond, F.L.; Sandford, R.; Malik Sharif, S.; et al. Quantification of Homozygosity in Consanguineous Individuals with Autosomal Recessive Disease. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2006, 78, 889–896.
  38. WHO—World Health Organization. Child Sexual Abuse: A Silent Health Emergency: Report of the Regional Director; Regional Committee for Africa, 54; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011.
  39. Emre, R.; Canturk, K.M.; Komur, I.; Dogan, M.; Demirel, H.; Baspınar, B. Evaluation of Incest Cases of Turkey in Terms of DNA Profiling Difficulties. J. Forensic Leg. Med. 2015, 36, 16–21.
  40. Hakim, H.M.; Khan, H.O.; Ismail, S.A.; Lalung, J.; Kofi, A.E.; Aziz, M.Y.; Pati, S.; Nelson, B.R.; Chambers, G.K.; Edinur, H.A. Population Data and Genetic Characteristics of 12 X-STR Loci Using the Investigator® Argus X-12 Quality Sensor Kit for the Kedayan Population of Borneo in Malaysia. Int. J. Leg. Med. 2021, 135, 1433–1435.
  41. Kosky, R. Incest: What Do We Really Know about It? Aust. N. Z. J. Psychiatry 1987, 21, 430–440.
  42. Russell, D.E.H. The Incidence and Prevalence of Intrafamilial and Extrafamilial Sexual Abuse of Female Children. Child Abus. Negl. 1983, 7, 133–146.
  43. Sariola, H.; Uutela, A. The Prevalence and Context of Incest Abuse in Finland. Child Abus. Negl. 1996, 20, 843–850.
  44. Siskind, V. Bias in Estimating the Frequency of Incest. Ann. Hum. Genet. 1975, 38, 355–359.
  45. Alonso, A. (Ed.) DNA Electrophoresis Protocols for Forensic Genetics, 1st ed.; Humana Press: Totowa, NJ, USA, 2012; Volume 830, ISBN 978-1-61779-460-5.
  46. Prinz, M.; Carracedo, A.; Mayr, W.R.; Morling, N.; Parsons, T.J.; Sajantila, A.; Scheithauer, R.; Schmitter, H.; Schneider, P.M. DNA Commission of the International Society for Forensic Genetics (ISFG): Recommendations Regarding the Role of Forensic Genetics for Disaster Victim Identification (DVI). Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2007, 1, 3–12.
  47. Carboni, I.; Iozzi, S.; Nutini, A.L.; Torricelli, F.; Ricci, U. Improving Complex Kinship Analyses with Additional STR Loci. ELECTROPHORESIS 2014, 35, 3145–3151.
  48. Szibor, R.; Krawczak, M.; Hering, S.; Edelmann, J.; Kuhlisch, E.; Krause, D. Use of X-Linked Markers for Forensic Purposes. Int. J. Leg. Med. 2003, 117, 67–74.
  49. Butler, J.M. Advanced Topics in Forensic DNA Typing: Methodology; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2011.
  50. Bini, C.; Di Nunzio, C.; Aneli, S.; Sarno, S.; Alù, M.; Carnevali, E.; Colao, E.; Di Nunzio, M.; Fabbri, M.; Fattorini, P.; et al. Analysis of recombination and mutation events for 12 X-Chr STR loci: A collaborative family study of the Italian Speaking Working Group Ge.F.I. Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. Suppl. Ser. 2019, 7, 398–400.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Biology
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Fernanda M. Garcia
,
Bárbara G. O. Bessa
,
Eldamária V. W. dos Santos
,
Julia D. P. Pereira
,
Lyvia N. R. Alves
,
Lucas A. Vianna
,
Matheus C. Casotti
,
Raquel S. R. Trabach
,
Victor S. Stange
,
Débora D. Meira
,
Iuri D. Louro
View Times: 811
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 22 Sep 2022
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    ScholarVision Creations
    Feedback