Medium- and long-range familial/kinship testing is demonstrating its potential to assist identification of unknown deceased persons when standard DNA identification techniques fail. Up until now, unidentified and missing persons casework has benefited from the use of well-established short-range familial/kinship testing techniques; however, law enforcement (LE) agencies and forensic DNA laboratories have begun to leverage new forensic genomics tools to extend kinship testing. Forensic investigative genetic genealogy (FIGG) is a form of long-range familial/kinship testing that has become increasingly popular in recent years. There are, however, considerations that need to be addressed before this technique can be routinely applied to the large numbers of unresolved identification cases. The majority of forensic DNA laboratories are unable to meet the specific technological and data analytical requirements for high-density single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping. As a result, several private laboratories now provide FIGG services to LE agencies, including SNP genotyping and genealogical research. The development of bespoke targeted amplicon sequencing panels for conducting medium-range familial/kinship testing now presents forensic DNA laboratories with the capacity and capability to perform this testing in-house. Outside of the laboratory, governance frameworks will need to reflect the goals of human remains identification and missing persons investigations, while addressing privacy impacts associated with the handling of personal and genetic information by LE agencies.
RobinsS.Analysis of Best Practices on the Identification of Missing Migrants: Implications for the Central Mediterranean. Central Mediterranean Route Thematic Report Series. International Organization for Migration: Geneva, Switzerland; 2018.
4.
WickenheiserRA.Expanding DNA database effectiveness. Forensic Sci Int Synerg, 2022; 4:100226; doi: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100226
5.
BieberFR, BrennerCH, LazerD. Finding criminals through DNA of their relatives. Science, 2006; 312(5778):1315–1316; doi: 10.1126/science.1122655
6.
GeJ, BudowleB, ChakrabortyR. Choosing relatives for DNA identification of missing persons. J Forensic Sci, 2011; 56:S23–S28; doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01631.x
7.
KayserM, De KnijffP. Improving human forensics through advances in genetics, genomics and molecular biology. Nat Rev Genet, 2011; 12(3):179–192; doi: 10.1038/nrg2952
DahalA, McNevinD, ChikhaniM, et al.An interdisciplinary forensic approach for human remains identification and missing persons investigations. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Forensic Sci, 2023; 5:e1484; doi: 10.1002/wfs2.1484
10.
WardJ.A multifaceted, multijurisdictional, multiagency, and multidisciplinary approach to investigating unidentified and missing persons cases in Australia. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser, 2022; 8:53–55; doi: 10.1016/j.fsigss.2022.09.020
11.
RitterN.Missing persons and unidentified remains: The nation's silent mass disaster. NIJ J, 2007; 256(7):2–7.
12.
RodriguezAL, Smiley-McDonaldHM, CummingsMS, et al.Understanding unidentified human remains investigations through the United States census data. Forensic Sci Int Synerg, 2022; 4:100225; doi: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100225
13.
ReidKM, MartinLJ, HeathfieldLJ. Understanding the burden of unidentified bodies: A systematic review. Int J Legal Med, 2023; 137(4):1193–1202; doi: 10.1007/s00414-023-02968-5
WardJ.Best practice recommendations for the establishment of a national DNA identification program for missing persons: A global perspective. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser, 2017; 6:e43–e45; doi: 10.1016/j.fsigss.2017.09.009
16.
LeclairB.Large-scale comparative genotyping and kinship analysis: Evolution in its use for human identification in mass fatality incidents and missing persons databasing. Int Congress Ser, 2004; 1261:42–44; doi: 10.1016/s0531-5131(03)01661-3
International Criminal Police Organisation. Best Practice Principles: Recommendation on the Use of DNA for the Identification of Missing Persons and Unidentified Human Remains. INTERPOL DNA Monitoring Expert Group: Lyon, France; 2015.
20.
LaurentF-X, FischerA, OldtR, et al.Streamlining the decision-making process for international DNA kinship matching using worldwide allele frequencies and tailored cutoff log10LR thresholds. Forensic Sci Int Genet, 2022; 57:102634; doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2021.102634
21.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police. National Home Page | Royal Canadian Mounted Police; 2022. Available from: https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca [Last accessed: June5, 2022].
22.
University of North Texas Center for Human Identification. Center for Human Identification—A Globally-Recognised Leader in Forensic Identification: The University of North Texas Health Science Center at Fort Worth; 2022. Available from: https://www.unthsc.edu/center-for-human-identification [Last accessed: June5, 2022].
23.
National Institute of Justice. Familial DNA searching: Current approaches. Natl Inst Justice, 2015:1–82.
24.
Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods. Recommendations from the SWGDAM Ad Hoc Working Group on Familial Searching. SWGDAM Communications: Unites States; 2013.
25.
WynerN, BarashM, McNevinD. Forensic autosomal short tandem repeats and their potential association with phenotype. Front Genet, 2020; 11:884; doi: 10.3389/fgene.2020.00884
26.
BañuelosMM, ZavaletaYJA, RoldanA, et al.Associations between forensic loci and expression levels of neighboring genes may compromise medical privacy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2022; 119(40):e2121024119; doi: 10.1073/pnas.2121024119
27.
MurphyE.Law and policy oversight of familial searches in recreational genealogy databases. Forensic Sci Int, 2018; 292:e5–e9; doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.08.027
28.
MaguireCN, McCallumLA, StoreyC, et al.Familial searching: A specialist forensic DNA profiling service utilising the National DNA Database® to identify unknown offenders via their relatives—The UK experience. Forensic Sci Int Genet, 2014; 8(1):1–9; doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2013.07.004
29.
PrainsackB.Key Issues in DNA Profiling and Databasing: Implications for Governance. In: Genetic Suspects: Global Governance of Forensic DNA Profiling and Databasing. (Hindmarsh R, Prainsack B. eds.) Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, United Kingdom; 2010; pp. 153–174; doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511778193.003
30.
KennettD.Using genetic genealogy databases in missing persons cases and to develop suspect leads in violent crimes. Forensic Sci Int, 2019; 301:107–117; doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.05.016
31.
AbarnoD, SobierajT, SummersC, et al.The first Australian conviction resulting from a familial search. Aust J Forensic Sci, 2019; 51(Suppl 1):S56–S59; doi: 10.1080/00450618.2019.1568553
32.
SmithM, UrbasGF. Regulating new forms of forensic DNA profiling under Australian legislation: Familial matching and DNA phenotyping. Aust J Forensic Sci, 2012; 44(1):63–81; doi: 10.1080/00450618.2011.581250
33.
ThomasL.Nothing to hide, something to fear?: The use of partial DNA matching in criminal investigations. J Law Inf Sci, 2006; 17:72–93.
34.
ShandA.Case: Lost at Sea: Ep 1—Kingscliff. NSW Police State Crime Command—Investgiations: LiSTNR; 2021.
35.
BrennerCH, WeirBS. Issues and strategies in the DNA identification of World Trade Center victims. Theor Popul Biol, 2003; 63(3):173–178; doi: 10.1016/S0040-5809(03)00008-X
36.
Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods. Guidelines for Missing Persons Casework. SWGDAM Communications: United States; 2014.
AlonsoA, MartínP, AlbarránC, et al.Challenges of DNA profiling in mass disaster investigations. Croat Med J, 2005; 46(4):540–548.
39.
JeffreysAJ, AllenMJ, HagelbergE, et al.Identification of the skeletal remains of Josef Mengele by DNA analysis. Forensic Sci Int, 1992; 56(1):65–76; doi: 10.1016/0379-0738(92)90148-p
40.
GeJ, ChakrabortyR, EisenbergA, et al.Comparisons of familial DNA database searching strategies. J Forensic Sci, 2011; 56(6):1448–1456; doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01867.x
41.
LeclairB, ShalerR, CarmodyGR, et al.Bioinformatics and human identification in mass fatality incidents: The World Trade Center disaster. J Forensic Sci, 2007; 52(4):806–819; doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2007.00456.x
42.
OefeleinRH.Seven years of SNPs: An assessment of methods utilized for generating profiles for forensic genetic genealogy. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser, 2022; 8:347–348; doi: 10.1016/j.fsigss.2022.11.002
43.
AmorimA, PereiraL. Pros and cons in the use of SNPs in forensic kinship investigation: A comparative analysis with STRs. Forensic Sci Int, 2005; 150(1):17–21; doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2004.06.018
44.
ButlerJM, CobleMD, VallonePM. STRs vs. SNPs: Thoughts on the future of forensic DNA testing. Forensic Sci Med Pathol, 2007; 3(3):200–205; doi: 10.1007/s12024-007-0018-1
45.
RajagopalanRM, FujimuraJH. Variations on a chip: Technologies of difference in human genetics research. J Hist Biol, 2018; 51(4):841–873; doi: 10.1007/s10739-018-9543-x
46.
HurdPJ, NelsonCJ. Advantages of next-generation sequencing versus the microarray in epigenetic research. Brief Funct Genomic Proteomic, 2009; 8(3):174–183; doi: 10.1093/bfgp/elp013
KlingD, PhillipsC, KennettD, et al.Investigative genetic genealogy: Current methods, knowledge and practice. Forensic Sci Int Genet, 2021; 52:102474; doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2021.102474
49.
ErlichY, NarayananA. Routes for breaching and protecting genetic privacy. Nat Rev Genet, 2014; 15(6):409–421; doi: 10.1038/nrg3723
50.
BaloghMK, BenderK, SchneiderPM. Application of Nanogen microarray technology for forensic SNP analysis. Int Congress Ser, 2006; 1288:43–45; doi: 10.1016/j.ics.2005.10.047
51.
DivneA-M, AllenM. A DNA microarray system for forensic SNP analysis. Forensic Sci Int, 2005; 154(2–3):111–121; doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2004.09.134
52.
KeatingB, BansalAT, WalshS, et al.First all-in-one diagnostic tool for DNA intelligence: Genome-wide inference of biogeographic ancestry, appearance, relatedness, and sex with the Identitas v1 Forensic Chip. Int J Legal Med, 2013; 127(3):559–572; doi: 10.1007/s00414-012-0788-1
53.
UrtiagaGO, DominguesWB, KomninouER, et al.DNA microarray for forensic intelligence purposes: High-density SNP profiles obtained directly from casework-like samples with and without a DNA purification step. Forensic Sci Int, 2022; 332:111181; doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2022.111181
54.
BeverR, ByrneM.Forensic Genealogy: Unlocking the Science of Genealogy. Forensic Genealogy—Webinar Series: Exploring the Impact, Processes, Successes and Challenges of Forensic Genealogy. Bode Technology: Virginia, United States; 2020.
55.
RussellDA, GordenEM, PeckMA, et al.Developmental validation of the Illumina Infinium Assay using the global screening array on the iScan System for use in forensic laboratories. Forensic Genom, 2023; 3(1):15–24; doi: 10.1089/forensic.2022.0013
56.
de VriesJH, KlingD, VidakiA, et al.Impact of SNP microarray analysis of compromised DNA on kinship classification success in the context of investigative genetic genealogy. Forensic Sci Int Genet, 2022; 56:102625; doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2021.102625
57.
DavawalaA, StockA, SpidenM, et al.Forensic Genetic Genealogy using microarrays for the identification of human remains: The need for good quality samples—A pilot study. Forensic Sci Int, 2022; 334:111242; doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2022.111242
KlingD.On the use of dense sets of SNP markers and their potential in relationship inference. Forensic Sci Int Genet, 2019; 39:19–31; doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.11.022
63.
TillmarA, Sturk-AndreaggiK, Daniels-HigginbothamJ, et al.The FORCE panel: An all-in-one SNP marker set for confirming investigating genetic genealogy leads and for general forensic applications. bioRxiv, 2021; doi: 10.1101/2021.11.30.470354
64.
LangeK.The affected sib-pair method using identity by state relations. Am J Hum Genet, 1986; 39(1):148.
65.
NiedzwieckiE, Debus-SherrillS, FieldMB. Understanding Familial DNA Searching: Coming to a Consensus on Terminology. US Department of Justice: Virginia, United States; 2017.
66.
StevensEL, HeckenbergG, RobersonEDO, et al.Inference of relationships in population data using identity-by-descent and identity-by-state. PLoS Genet, 2011; 7(9):e1002287; doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002287
67.
MorimotoC, ManabeS, FujimotoS, et al.Discrimination of relationships with the same degree of kinship using chromosomal sharing patterns estimated from high-density SNPs. Forensic Sci Int Genet, 2018; 33:10–16; doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2017.11.010
68.
GeJ, BudowleB. Forensic investigation approaches of searching relatives in DNA databases. J Forensic Sci, 2021; 66(2):430–443; doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.14615
69.
SticcaEL, BelbinGM, GignouxCR. Current developments in detection of identity-by-descent methods and applications. Front Genet, 2021; 12(1725):722602; doi: 10.3389/fgene.2021.722602
70.
SpeedD, BaldingDJ. Relatedness in the post-genomic era: Is it still useful?. Nat Rev Genet, 2015; 16(1):33–44; doi: 10.1038/nrg3821
71.
BouquetM.Genealogy in Anthroplogy. In: International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioural Sciences. 2nd ed. (Wright JD. ed.) 2001; pp. 6029–6032; doi: 10.1016/b0-08-043076-7/00876
72.
ByrnesJ, MyersN, UnderhillP.Genetic Genealogy in the Genomic Era. In: Forensic DNA Applications: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. 2nd ed. (Primorac D, Schanfield M. eds.) CRC Press: Florida, United States; 2014; p. 483.
GomesC, Palomo-DíezS, López-ParraAM, et al.Genealogy: The tree where history meets genetics. Genealogy, 2021; 5(4):98; doi: 10.3390/genealogy5040098
75.
ParkerK, ErzurumluogluAM, RodriguezS. The Y chromosome: A complex locus for genetic analyses of complex human traits. Genes, 2020; 11(11):1273; doi: 10.3390/genes11111273
76.
ClaerhoutS, DefrayeC, DecorteR. Validation of Y-ancestor time calculators for forensic familial searching. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser, 2019; 7(1):411–413; doi: 10.1016/j.fsigss.2019.10.032
77.
CalafellF, LarmuseauMHD. The Y chromosome as the most popular marker in genetic genealogy benefits interdisciplinary research. Hum Genet, 2017; 136(5):559–573; doi: 10.1007/s00439-016-1740-0
78.
KingTE, JoblingMA. Founders, drift, and infidelity: The relationship between Y chromosome diversity and patrilineal surnames. Mol Biol Evol, 2009; 26(5):1093–1102; doi: 10.1093/molbev/msp022
79.
KingTE, JoblingMA. What's in a name? Y chromosomes, surnames and the genetic genealogy revolution. Trends Genet, 2009; 25(8):351–360; doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2009.06.003
80.
LarmuseauMHD, Van GeystelenA, Van OvenM, et al.Genetic genealogy comes of age: Perspectives on the use of deep-rooted pedigrees in human population genetics. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2013; 150(4):505–511; doi: 10.1002/ajpa.22233
81.
MooreC.The history of genetic genealogy and unknown parentage research: An insider's view. J Genet Geneal, 2016; 8(1):35–37.
82.
HogarthS, JavittG, MelzerD. The current landscape for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: Legal, ethical, and policy issues. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet, 2008; 9(1):161–182; doi: 10.1146/annurev.genom.9.081307.164319
83.
AllyseMA, RobinsonDH, FerberMJ, et al.Direct-to-consumer testing 2.0: Emerging models of direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Mayo Clin Proc, 2018; 93(1):113–120; doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2017.11.001
84.
ErlichY, ShorT, Pe'ErI, et al.Identity inference of genomic data using long-range familial searches. Science, 2018; 362(6415):690–694; doi: 10.1126/science.aau4832
85.
Ancestry.com. AncestryDNA® | DNA Tests for Ethnicity & Genealogy DNA. 2022. Available from: https://www.ancestry.com.au/dna [Last accessed: March14, 2022].
86.
23andMe. DNA Genetic Testing & Analysis—23andMe; 2022. Available from: https://www.23andme.com/en-int [Last accessed: February20, 2022].
87.
MyHeritage. Free Family Tree, Genealogy, Family History, and DNA Testing. 2022. Available from: https://www.myheritage.com [Last accessed: February22, 2022].
88.
FamilyTreeDNA. DNA Testing for Ancestry & Genealogy | FamilyTreeDNA; 2022. Available from: https://www.familytreedna.com [Last accessed: February24, 2022].
MajumderMA, GuerriniCJ, McGuireAL. Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: Value and risk. Annu Rev Med. 2021; 72(1):151–166; doi: 10.1146/annurev-med-070119-114727
91.
GreytakEM, MooreC, ArmentroutSL. Genetic genealogy for cold case and active investigations. Forensic Sci Int, 2019; 299:103–113; doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.03.039
92.
BallCA, BarberMJ, ByrnesJ, et al.Ancestry DNA Matching White Paper. Ancestrycom: Utah, Untied States; 2016; pp. 1–46.
93.
SamuelG, KennettD. Problematizing consent: Searching genetic genealogy databases for law enforcement purposes. N Genet Soc, 2021; 40:1–21. doi: 10.1080/14636778.2020.1843149
94.
GEDmatch. Find DNA Matches for Free | Analyze Your DNA | GEDmatch; 2022. Available from: https://www.gedmatch.com [Last accessed: July17, 2021].
95.
BerkmanBE, MillerWK, GradyC. Is it ethical to use genealogy data to solve crimes?. Ann Intern Med, 2018; 169(5):333–334; doi: 10.7326/m18-1348
GreytakEM, KayeDH, BudowleB, et al.Privacy and genetic genealogy data. Science, 2018; 361(6405):857; doi: 10.1126/science.aav0330
98.
Denise Syndercombe Court. Forensic genealogy: Some serious concerns. Forensic Sci Int Genet, 2018; 36:203–204; doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.07.011
99.
TerrySF, CaffetM. Free at last? Discussing the future of forensic genealogy. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers, 2020; 24(4):171–172; doi: 10.1089/gtmb.2020.29051.sjt
100.
Department of Justice. Forensic Genetic Genealogical DNA Analysis and Searching. Interim Policy: United States; 2019.
101.
Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods. Overview of Investigative Genetic Genealogy. SWGDAM Communications: United States; 2020.
102.
GlynnCL.Bridging disciplines to form a new one: The emergence of forensic genetic genealogy. Genes, 2022; 13(8):1381; doi: 10.3390/genes13081381
103.
ScudderN, McNevinD, KeltySF, et al.Policy and regulatory implications of the new frontier of forensic genomics: Direct-to-consumer genetic data and genealogy records. Curr Issues Crim Justice, 2019; 31(2):194–216; doi: 10.1080/10345329.2018.1560588
104.
ScudderN, RobertsonJ, KeltySF, et al.An international consideration of a standards-based approach to forensic genetic genealogy. Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser, 2019; 7(1):512–514; doi: 10.1016/j.fsigss.2019.10.071
105.
JoblingM.Denise Syndercombe Court. Should We Be Making Use of Genetic Genealogy to Assist in Solving Crime? A Report on the Feasibility of Such Methods in the UK. Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group: United Kingdom; 2020.
106.
GreytakE, MooreC.Closing Cases with a Single SNP Array: Integrated Genetic Genealogy, DNA Phenotyping, and Kinship Analyses [Poster]. International Symposium on Human Identification: Arizona, United States; 2018.
American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors. ASCLD Investigative Genetic Genealogy. ASCLD Member Resoure Committee: North Carolina, United States; 2019.
110.
FagerholmSA, TillmarA, StaafJ, et al.Forensic DNA Traces and Genealogy: Use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy in Criminal Investigations. The Swedish Police Authority, Swedish National Forensic Centre: Linköping, Sweden; 2021.
111.
ScudderN, DanielR, RaymondJ, et al.Operationalising forensic genetic genealogy in an Australian context. Forensic Sci Int, 2020; 316:110543; doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110543
112.
RamN, RobertsJL. Forensic genealogy and the power of defaults. Nat Biotechnol, 2019; 37(7):707–708; doi: 10.1038/s41587-019-0172-5
ScudderN, McNevinD, KeltySF, et al.Massively parallel sequencing and the emergence of forensic genomics: Defining the policy and legal issues for law enforcement. Sci Justice, 2018; 58(2):153–158; doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2017.10.001
135.
HazelJW, ClaytonEW, MalinBA, et al.Is it time for a universal genetic forensic database?. Science, 2018; 362(6417):898–900; doi: 10.1126/science.aav5475
136.
QIAGEN. Massively Parallel Sequencing Solutions for Human Identity. QIAGEN® Human ID and Forensics: Hilden, Germany; 2020.
137.
ChoW-C, YooS, YounBJ, et al.Forensic application of SNP-targeted next-generation sequencing on Korean kinship analysis. 2022; doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4279141
138.
PhillipsC, AmigoJ, TillmarAO, et al.A compilation of tri-allelic SNPs from 1000 Genomes and use of the most polymorphic loci for a large-scale human identification panel. Forensic Sci Int Genet, 2020; 46:102232; doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2020/102232
139.
Verogen. Data Sheet: ForenSeq Kintelligence Kit. ForenSeq Kintelligence Kit: California, United States; 2021.
140.
Verogen. High-Quality Outcomes from Low-Quality Samples with ForenSeq Kintelligence [Application Note]. ForenSeq Kintelligence Kit: California, United States; 2021.
141.
AntunesJ, RadeckeS, SnedecorJ, et al.Application of a dense SNP PCR multiplex for high throughput kinship determination using Next Generation Sequencing (NGS). Forensic Sci Int Genet Suppl Ser, 2022; 8:324–325; doi: 10.1016/j.fsigss.2022.10.007
142.
CuencaD.An Improved Method for Forensic Genetic Genealogy in an Operational Crime Lab. Xtalks: Verogen: California, United States; 2021.
StaadigA, SidstedtM, TillmarA.ForenSeq® Kintelligence A Targeted DNA Sequencing Assay for Forensic Genetic Genealogy. Rättsmedicinalverket National Board of Forensic Medicine: Linköping University, Polisen Swedish Police: Linköping, Sweden; 2021.
145.
PeckMA, KoeppelAF, GordenEM, et al.Internal validation of the ForenSeq Kintelligence Kit for application to forensic genetic genealogy. Forensic Genom, 2022; 2(4):103–114; doi: 10.1089/forensic.2022.0014
146.
WatsonJL, McNevinD, GrisedaleK, et al.Operationalisation of the ForenSeq® Kintelligence Kit for Australian unidentified and missing persons casework. Forensic Sci Int Genet, 2024; 68:102972; doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2023.102972
147.
Verogen. SNP Typing in Universal Analysis Software and Kinship Estimation with GEDmatch PRO [Technical Note]. ForenSeq Kintelligence Kit: California, United States; 2021.
148.
SnedecorJ, FennellT, StadickS, et al.Fast and accurate kinship estimation using sparse SNPs in relatively large database searches. Forensic Sci Int Genet, 2022; 61:102769; doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2022.102769
149.
ArensonJ.DNA Labs International Aids in the Identification of Remains That Had Been Unidentified for 22 Years [Internet]. DNA Labs International, ed. PRWeb: Deerfield Beach, FL; 2022. Available from: https://www.prweb.com/releases/2022/2/prweb18514476.htm [Last accessed: February23, 2022].
WardJ, CoakleyL, GrisedaleK, et al.Operationalisation of the National DNA Program for Unidentified and Missing Persons' forensic investigative genetic genealogy capability for human remains identification in Australia. Forensic Genom, 2024; 4(1):32–40.
GordenEM, Sturk-AndreaggiK, MarshallC. Capture enrichment and massively parallel sequencing for human identification. Forensic Sci Int Genet, 2021; 53:102496; doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2021.102496
155.
TillmarA, AndreaggiK, AmoryC, et al.Advancing Forensic SNP Typing: Insights from an Interlaboratory Study of the FORCE Panel [Conference Session]. 12th Haploid Markers Conference, Budapest, Hungary, May 19, 2023.
156.
StaadigA, HedmanJ, TillmarA. Applying unique molecular indices with an extensive all-in-one forensic SNP panel for improved genotype accuracy and sensitivity. Genes, 2023; 14(4):818; doi: 10.3390/genes14040818
157.
TillmarA, SjölundP, LundqvistB, et al.Whole-genome sequencing of human remains to enable genealogy DNA database searches—A case report. Forensic Sci Int Genet, 2020; 46:102233; doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2020.102233
158.
Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods. SWGDAM Interpretation Guidelines for Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) Analysis by Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories. SWGDAM Communications: United States; 2024.
159.
OosthuizenT, HowesLM. The development of forensic DNA analysis: New debates on the issue of fundamental human rights. Forensic Sci Int Genet, 2022; 56:102606; doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2021.102606
AlonsoA, MüllerP, RoewerL, et al.European survey on forensic applications of massively parallel sequencing. Forensic Sci Int Genet, 2017; 29:e23–e25; doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2017.04.017
162.
BudowleB, ArnetteA, SajantilaA. A cost–benefit analysis for use of large SNP panels and high throughput typing for forensic investigative genetic genealogy. Int J Legal Med, 2023; 137(5):1595–1614; doi: 10.1007/s00414-023-03029-7
ZavalaEI, ThomasJT, Sturk-AndreaggiK, et al.Ancient DNA methods improve forensic DNA profiling of Korean War and World War II unknowns. Genes, 2022; 13(1):129; doi: 10.3390/genes13010129
165.
XavierC, EduardoffM, BertoglioB, et al.Evaluation of DNA extraction methods developed for forensic and ancient DNA applications using bone samples of different age. Genes, 2021; 12(2):146; doi: 10.3390/genes12020146
166.
RohlandN, GlockeI, Aximu-PetriA, et al.Extraction of highly degraded DNA from ancient bones, teeth and sediments for high-throughput sequencing. Nat Protoc, 2018; 13(11):2447–2461; doi: 10.1038/nprot.2007.247
167.
LoreilleOM, DiegoliTM, IrwinJA, et al.High efficiency DNA extraction from bone by total demineralization. Forensic Sci Int Genet, 2007; 1(2):191–195; doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2007.02.006
168.
XavierC, ParsonW. Evaluation of the Illumina ForenSeq™ DNA Signature Prep Kit—MPS forensic application for the MiSeq FGx™ benchtop sequencer. Forensic Sci Int Genet, 2017; 28:188–194; doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2017.02.018
169.
EmeryMV, BolhofnerK, WiningearS, et al.Reconstructing full and partial STR profiles from severely burned human remains using comparative ancient and forensic DNA extraction techniques. Forensic Sci Int Genet, 2020; 46:102272; doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2020.102272
170.
ThomasJT, CavagninoC, KjellandK, et al.Evaluating the usefulness of human DNA quantification to predict DNA profiling success of historical bone samples. Genes, 2023; 14(5):994; doi: 10.3390/genes14050994
171.
HofreiterM, SnebergerJ, PospisekM, et al.Progress in forensic bone DNA analysis: Lessons learned from ancient DNA. Forensic Sci Int Genet, 2021; 54:102538; doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2021.102538
172.
ErtürkMS, FitzpatrickC, PressM, et al.Analysis of the genealogy process in forensic genetic genealogy. J Forensic Sci, 2022; 67(6):2218–2229; doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.15127
GurneyD, PressM, MooreC, et al.The need for standards and certification for investigative genetic genealogy, and a notice of action. Forensic Sci Int, 2022; 341:111495; doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2022.111495
177.
Board of Certification for Investigative Genetic Genelaogy. Board of Certification for Investigative Genetic Genelaogy. 2022. Available from: https://bcigg.org [Last accessed: December12, 2022].
RoffeyP, ScudderN. Privacy implications of the new “omic” technologies in law enforcement. WIREs Forensic Sci, 2021; 4(3):e1445; doi: 10.1002/wfs2.1445
180.
SamuelG, KennettD. The impact of investigative genetic genealogy: Perceptions of UK professional and public stakeholders. Forensic Sci Int Genet, 2020; 48:102366; doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2020.102366
181.
GuerriniCJ, RobinsonJO, PetersenD, et al.Should police have access to genetic genealogy databases? Capturing the Golden State Killer and other criminals using a controversial new forensic technique. PLoS Biol, 2018; 16(10):e2006906; doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2006906
182.
QuintonAR, KeltySF, ScudderN. Attitudes towards police use of consumer/private DNA databases in investigations. Sci Justice, 2022; 62(3):263–271; doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2022.02.009
183.
MachadoH, GranjaR.Emerging DNA Technologies and Stigmatisation. In: Forensic Genetics in the Governance of Crime. (Machado H, Granja R. eds.) Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 85–104.
184.
GranjaR, MachadoH. Ethical controversies of familial searching: The views of stakeholders in the United Kingdom and in Poland. Sci Technol Hum Values, 2019; 44(6):1068–1092; doi: 10.1177/0162243919828219
StajanoF, BianchiL, LiòP, et al.Forensic Genomics: Kin Privacy, Driftnets and Other Open Questions. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society, ACM Press: New York, United States; 2008; doi: 10.1145/1456403.1456407
197.
MoranKS.Damned by DNA—Balancing personal privacy with public safety. Forensic Sci Int, 2018; 292:e3–e4; doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.09.011
198.
ErlichY, ShorT, CarmiS, et al.Re-identification of genomic data using long range familial searches. Science, 2018; 362(6415):690–694; doi: 10.1126/science.aau4832
RocherL, HendrickxJM, De MontjoyeY-A. Estimating the success of re-identifications in incomplete datasets using generative models. Nat Commun, 2019; 10(1):3069; doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-10933-3
201.
WrightD, De HertP. Introduction to Privacy ImpactAssessment. In: Privacy ImpactAssessment, Vol. 6. (Wright D, De Hert P. eds.) Springer: Dordrecht, 2012; pp. 3–32.
202.
MachadoH, SilvaS. Investigative genetic genealogy: An ethical and privacy assessment framework tool is needed. Forensic Sci Rev, 2022; 34(1):17–19.
203.
ScudderN, McNevinD, KeltySF, et al.Forensic DNA phenotyping: Developing a model privacy impact assessment. Forensic Sci Int Genet, 2018; 34:222–230; doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.03.005
204.
MilesC.Privacy Impact Assessment for the Rapid DNA System. US Department of Homeland Security: United States; 2013.
205.
DowdeswellTL.Forensic genetic genealogy: A profile of cases solved. Forensic Sci Int Genet, 2022; 58:102679; doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2022.102679
206.
Ford-MonroeJ.Why familial searches of civilian DNA databases can and should survive carpenter. Hastings Law J, 2021; 72(6):1717.
207.
ButlerJM.Recent advances in forensic biology and forensic DNA typing: INTERPOL review 2019–2022. Forensic Sci Int Synerg, 2023; 6:100311; doi: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100311
208.
de GrootNF, Van BeersBC, MeynenG. Commercial DNA tests and police investigations: A broad bioethical perspective. J Med Ethics, 2021; 47(12):788–795; doi: 10.1136/medethics-2021-107568
National Missing and Unidentified Persons System. NamUs Case Statistics—All Cases [December 2022]: National Institute of Justice; 2022. Available from: https://namus.nig.ojp.gov/library/reports-and-statistics [Last accessed: May14, 2023].
211.
National Missing Persons Coordination Centre. About | National Missing Persons Coordination Centre; 2023. Available from: https://www.missingpersons.gov.au/about [Last accessed: August17, 2023].
212.
Illumina. Infinium™ Global Screening Array-24 v3.0 BeadChip, Data Sheet, Pub. No. 370-2016-016-G. 2020.
