4 ms·

mitochondrial dna haplogroups are not sufficiently unique to be particularly reliable for this purpose. The entire genome is only 16kb. But if there was enough

by cariaso 12y ago

mitochondrial dna haplogroups are not sufficiently unique to be particularly reliable for this purpose. The entire genome is only 16kb. But if there was enough DNA to recover the mitochondrial, there should be enough to recover much more autosomal DNA (3Gb in size), which would be sufficient for identification.

kyberias 12y ago
You are correct that autosomal DNA would have been better option (if available), and would have provided more reliable results, yet to my understanding, mtDNA is being used in criminology. This is a relevant case as well: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11210907 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11210907
jimhefferon 12y ago
I admit that I don't know any more about DNA matching than can be gleaned from occasionally watching the news. But if there are, say, a dozen serious suspects and this matches one then isn't that persuasive? That is, searching an entire database of DNA samples requires more hits to be convincing, in my mind, than does matching among a tiny group.
- TheCraiggers 12y ago
  By itself, I would imagine that might be enough to prove the innocence of some of the suspects, but not necessarily enough to prove the guilt of one suspect. Of course each court is different and the amount of evidence needed to convict isn't always the same.
Kliment 12y ago
The problem is getting samples from the bodies. The mtDNA was sampled from direct female line relatives of both victim and suspect, the bodies of the original victim and suspect are no longer available for forensic work. It should be reasonably possible to recover some autosomal DNA if mtDNA is available, but what do you compare it to?
apaprocki 12y ago
If I read the article correctly, the mtDNA was only used to correlate that the shawl reasonably belonged to the victim. The story of its provenance coupled with the fact that the mtDNA extracted matched her descendent perfectly. It certainly isn't bulletproof. The male identification came not from mtDNA, but from DNA extracted from epithelial cells.

by cariaso 12y ago

kyberias 12y ago

You are correct that autosomal DNA would have been better option (if available), and would have provided more reliable results, yet to my understanding, mtDNA is being used in criminology. This is a relevant case as well: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11210907 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11210907

jimhefferon 12y ago

I admit that I don't know any more about DNA matching than can be gleaned from occasionally watching the news. But if there are, say, a dozen serious suspects and this matches one then isn't that persuasive? That is, searching an entire database of DNA samples requires more hits to be convincing, in my mind, than does matching among a tiny group.

TheCraiggers 12y ago
By itself, I would imagine that might be enough to prove the innocence of some of the suspects, but not necessarily enough to prove the guilt of one suspect. Of course each court is different and the amount of evidence needed to convict isn't always the same.

Kliment 12y ago

The problem is getting samples from the bodies. The mtDNA was sampled from direct female line relatives of both victim and suspect, the bodies of the original victim and suspect are no longer available for forensic work. It should be reasonably possible to recover some autosomal DNA if mtDNA is available, but what do you compare it to?

apaprocki 12y ago

If I read the article correctly, the mtDNA was only used to correlate that the shawl reasonably belonged to the victim. The story of its provenance coupled with the fact that the mtDNA extracted matched her descendent perfectly. It certainly isn't bulletproof. The male identification came not from mtDNA, but from DNA extracted from epithelial cells.