Skip to main content
Log in

The QIAGEN 140-locus single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panel for forensic identification using massively parallel sequencing (MPS): an evaluation and a direct-to-PCR trial

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Legal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Massively parallel sequencing (MPS) of identity informative single-nucleotide polymorphisms (IISNPs) enables hundreds of forensically relevant markers to be analysed simultaneously. Generating DNA sequence data enables more detailed analysis including identification of sequence variations between individuals. The GeneRead DNAseq 140 IISNP MPS panel (QIAGEN) has been evaluated on both the MiSeq (Illumina) and Ion PGM™ (Applied Biosystems) MPS platforms using the GeneRead DNAseq Targeted Panels V2 library preparation workflow (QIAGEN). The aims of this study were to (1) determine if the GeneRead DNAseq panel is effective for identity testing by assessing deviation from Hardy-Weinberg (HWE) and pairwise linkage equilibrium (LE); (2) sequence samples with the GeneRead DNAseq panel on the Ion PGM™ using the QIAGEN workflow and assess specificity, sensitivity and accuracy; (3) assess the efficacy of adding biological samples directly to the GeneRead DNAseq PCR, without prior DNA extraction; and (4) assess the effect of varying coverage and allele frequency thresholds on genotype concordance. Analyses of the 140 SNPs for HWE and LE using Fisher’s exact tests and the sequential Bonferroni correction revealed that one SNP was out of HWE in the Japanese population and five SNP combinations were commonly out of LE in 13 of 14 populations. The panel was sensitive down to 0.3125 ng of DNA input. A direct-to-PCR approach (without DNA extraction) produced highly concordant genotypes. The setting of appropriate allele frequency thresholds is more effective for reducing erroneous genotypes than coverage thresholds.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Budowle B, Van Daal A (2008) Forensically relevant SNP classes. BioTechniques 44(5):603–610

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Butler JM, Coble MD, Vallone PM (2007) STRs vs. SNPs: thoughts on the future of forensic DNA testing. Forensic Sci Med Pathol 3(3):200–205

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Daniel R, Santos C, Phillips C, Fondevila M, van Oorschot RAH, Carracedo Á, Lareu MV, McNevin D (2015) A SNaPshot of next generation sequencing for forensic SNP analysis. Forensic Sci Int Genet 14:50–60

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kidd KK et al (2015) Genetic markers for massively parallel sequencing in forensics. Forensic Sci Int 5:e677–e679

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lou C, Cong B, Li S, Fu L, Zhang X, Feng T, Su S, Ma C, Yu F, Ye J, Pei L (2011) A SNaPshot assay for genotyping 44 individual identification single nucleotide polymorphisms. Electrophoresis 32(3–4):368–378

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Phillips C, Salas A, Sánchez JJ, Fondevila M, Gómez-Tato A, Alvarez-Dios J, Calaza M, de Cal MC, Ballard D, Lareu MV, Carracedo A, SNPforID Consortium (2007) Inferring ancestral origin using a single multiplex assay of ancestry-informative marker SNPs. Forensic Sci Int Genet 1(3):273–280

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Sanchez JJ, Phillips C, Børsting C, Balogh K, Bogus M, Fondevila M, Harrison CD, Musgrave-Brown E, Salas A, Syndercombe-Court D, Schneider PM, Carracedo A, Morling N (2006) A multiplex assay with 52 single nucleotide polymorphisms for human identification. Electrophoresis 27(9):1713–1724

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Mehta B, Daniel R, Phillips C, Doyle S, Elvidge G, McNevin D (2016) Massively parallel sequencing of customised forensically informative SNP panels on the MiSeq. ELECTROPHORESIS 37(21):2832–2840

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Grandell I, Samara R, Tillmar AO (2016) A SNP panel for identity and kinship testing using massive parallel sequencing. Int J Legal Med 130(4):905–914

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. de la Puente M, Phillips C, Santos C, Fondevila M, Carracedo Á, Lareu MV (2017) Evaluation of the Qiagen 140-SNP forensic identification multiplex for massively parallel sequencing. Forensic Sci Int Genet 28:35–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Phillips C, Parson W, Lundsberg B, Santos C, Freire-Aradas A, Torres M, Eduardoff M, Børsting C, Johansen P, Fondevila M, Morling N, Schneider P, EUROFORGEN-NoE Consortium, Carracedo A, Lareu MV (2014) Building a forensic ancestry panel from the ground up: the EUROFORGEN global AIM-SNP set. Forensic Sci Int Genet 11:13–25

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Al-Asfi M, McNevin D, Mehta B, Power D, Gahan ME, Daniel R (2018) Assessment of the Precision ID Ancestry panel. Int J Legal Med 132(6):1581–1594

  13. Seo SB, King JL, Warshauer DH, Davis CP, Ge J, Budowle B (2013) Single nucleotide polymorphism typing with massively parallel sequencing for human identification. Int J Legal Med 127(6):1079–1086

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Pakstis AJ, Speed WC, Fang R, Hyland FCL, Furtado MR, Kidd JR, Kidd KK (2010) SNPs for a universal individual identification panel. Hum Genet 127(3):315–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ottens R et al (2013) Application of direct PCR in forensic casework. Forensic Sci Int 4(1):e47–e48

    Google Scholar 

  16. McNevin D (2016) Preservation of and DNA Extraction from Muscle Tissue. Methods Mol Biol 1420:43–53

  17. QIAGEN(2014) Investigator Quantiplex HYres Handbook. Version 1:1–16

  18. Amigo J, Salas A, Phillips C, Carracedo Á (2008) SPSmart: adapting population based SNP genotype databases for fast and comprehensive web access. BMC Bioinformatics 9(1):428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Weir BS, Cockerham C (1996) Genetic data analysis II: methods for discrete population genetic data. Sinauer Assoc. Inc., Sunderland

    Google Scholar 

  20. Fisher RA (1922) On the interpretation of χ 2 from contingency tables, and the calculation of P. J R Stat Soc 85(1):87–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol 57(1):289–300

  22. Council, N.R (1996) The evaluation of forensic DNA evidence. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, p 272

    Google Scholar 

  23. Tillmar AO, Phillips C (2017) Evaluation of the impact of genetic linkage in forensic identity and relationship testing for expanded DNA marker sets. Forensic Sci Int Genet 26:58–65

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Børsting C, Fordyce SL, Olofsson J, Mogensen HS, Morling N (2014) Evaluation of the ion torrent™ HID SNP 169-plex: a SNP typing assay developed for human identification by second generation sequencing. Forensic Sci Int Genet 12:144–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Eduardoff M, Santos C, de la Puente M, Gross TE, Fondevila M, Strobl C, Sobrino B, Ballard D, Schneider PM, Carracedo Á, Lareu MV, Parson W, Phillips C (2015) Inter-laboratory evaluation of SNP-based forensic identification by massively parallel sequencing using the ion PGM™. Forensic Sci Int Genet 17:110–121

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Sorensen A, Berry C, Bruce D, Gahan ME, Hughes-Stamm S, McNevin D (2016) Direct-to-PCR tissue preservation for DNA profiling. Int J Legal Med 130(3):607–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors were supported by QIAGEN through their financial and technical contributions to this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to I. Avent.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

This study was partially funded by QIAGEN. N. Jones and I. Petermann are employed by QIAGEN.

Research involving human participants

Ethics approval was obtained from the University of Canberra Human Research Ethics Committee (Project Number CEHR 14-70), in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration.

Research involving animal participants

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. The Chimpanzee blood sample was donated from the sample collection of the Australian Federal Police (AFP).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(BED 5 kb)

ESM 2

(BED 28 kb)

ESM 3

(XLSX 12 kb)

ESM 4

(XLSX 141 kb)

ESM 5

(XLSX 10 kb)

ESM 6

(XLSX 15 kb)

ESM 7

(XLSX 32 kb)

ESM 8

(XLSX 9 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Avent, I., Kinnane, A.G., Jones, N. et al. The QIAGEN 140-locus single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panel for forensic identification using massively parallel sequencing (MPS): an evaluation and a direct-to-PCR trial. Int J Legal Med 133, 677–688 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-018-1975-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-018-1975-5

Keywords

Navigation