title: The influence of relatives on the efficiency and error rate of familial searching.
abstract: We investigate the consequences of adopting the criteria used by the state of California, as described by Myers et al. (2011), for conducting familial searches. We carried out a simulation study of randomly generated profiles of related and unrelated individuals with 13-locus CODIS genotypes and YFiler® Y-chromosome haplotypes, on which the Myers protocol for relative identification was carried out. For Y-chromosome sharing first degree relatives, the Myers protocol has a high probability (80~99%) of identifying their relationship. For unrelated individuals, there is a low probability that an unrelated person in the database will be identified as a first-degree relative. For more distant Y-haplotype sharing relatives (half-siblings, first cousins, half-first cousins or second cousins) there is a substantial probability that the more distant relative will be incorrectly identified as a first-degree relative. For example, there is a 3~18% probability that a first cousin will be identified as a full sibling, with the probability depending on the population background. Although the California familial search policy is likely to identify a first degree relative if his profile is in the database, and it poses little risk of falsely identifying an unrelated individual in a database as a first-degree relative, there is a substantial risk of falsely identifying a more distant Y-haplotype sharing relative in the database as a first-degree relative, with the consequence that their immediate family may become the target for further investigation. This risk falls disproportionately on those ethnic groups that are currently overrepresented in state and federal databases.
authors: Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, California, United States of America. rrohlfs@berkeley.edu
authors: Rori V
authors: RV
authors: Rohlfs
authors: Erin
authors: E
authors: Murphy
authors: Yun S
authors: YS
authors: Song
authors: Montgomery
authors: M
authors: Slatkin
mesh_terms: D002140:California; D041322:Chromosomes, Human, Y / Q000235:genetics; D030541:Databases, Genetic; D005189:False Positive Reactions; D005190:Family; D053803:Forensic Genetics / Q000379:methods*; D005787:Gene Frequency; D060005:Genotyping Techniques; D006801:Humans; D012107:Research Design
references: Hastings Cent Rep. 2008 Mar-Apr;38(2):43-53
references: 18457228
references: Am J Hum Genet. 2011 Mar 11;88(3):254-61
references: 21516613
references: Science. 2006 Jun 2;312(5778):1315-6
references: 16690817
references: N Engl J Med. 2010 Jul 15;363(3):204-7
references: 20538622
references: Community Genet. 2006;9(3):153-60
references: 16741344
references: Nat Rev Genet. 2009 May;10(5):331-5
references: 19308065
references: Sci Justice. 2008 Dec;48(4):164-7
references: 19192677
references: Science. 2009 Dec 18;326(5960):1631-2
references: 20019271
references: Nat Rev Genet. 2013 Jul;14(7):445
references: 23936920
references: Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2011 Nov;5(5):493-500
references: 21056023
references: J Law Med Ethics. 2006 Summer;34(2):248-62
references: 16789947
references: Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2010 Oct;4(5):316-22
references: 20457057
references: Nat Rev Genet. 2006 Oct;7(10):771-80
references: 16983373
references: Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2013 Jan;7(1):52-4
references: 22749791
references: J Law Med Ethics. 2005 Fall;33(3):545-58
references: 16240734
references: Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2011 Jan;5(1):16-20
references: 20739248
references: PLoS Genet. 2012 Feb;8(2):e1002469
references: 22346758
references: Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2008 Sep;2(4):340-2
references: 19083845
references: Nature. 2002 Nov 14;420(6912):111
references: 12432350