Correlation of DNA fragment sizes within loci in the presence of non-detectable alleles

  • Ranajit Chakraborty
  • Zhaojue Li
Part of the Contemporary Issues in Genetics and Evolution book series (CIGE, volume 4)


At present most forensic databases of DNA profiling of individuals consist of DNA fragment sizes measured from Southern blot restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis. Statistical studies of these databases have revealed that, when fragment sizes are measured from RFLP analysis, some of the single-band patterns of individuals may actually be due to heterozygosity of alleles in which fragment size resulting from one allele remains undetected. In this work, we evaluate the effect of such allelic non-detectability on correlation of fragment sizes within individuals at a locus, and its impact on the inference of independence of fragment sizes within loci. We show that when non-detectable alleles are present in a population at a locus, positive correlations of fragment sizes are expected, which increase with the proportion of non-detectable alleles at the locus. Therefore, a non-zero positive correlation is not a proof of allelic dependence within individuals. Applications of this theory to the current forensic RFLP databases within the US show that there is virtually no evidence of significant allelic dependence within any of the loci. Therefore, the assumption that DNA fragment sizes within loci are independent is valid, and hence, the population genetic principles of computing DNA profile frequencies by multiplying binned frequencies of fragment sizes are most likely to be appropriate for forensic applications of DNA typing data.


Intraclass Correlation Fragment Size Interclass Correlation Forensic Database Fragment Size Data 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Budowle, B., A.M. Giusti, J.S. Waye, F.S. Baechtel, R.M. Fourney, D.E. Adams, L.A. Presley, H.A. Dcadman and K.L. Monson, 1991a. Fixed-bin analysis for statistical evaluation of continuous distributions of allelic data from VNTR loci, for use in forensic computations. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 48: 841–855.Google Scholar
  2. Budowle, B., K.L. Monson, K.S. Anoe, F.S. Baechtel, D.L. Bergman, E. Buel, P.A. Campbell, M.E. Clement, H.W. Coey, L.A. Davis, A. Dixon, P. Fish, A.M. Giusti, T.L. Grant, T.M. Gronert, D.M. Hoover, L. Jankowski, A.J. Kilgore, W. Kimoto, W.H. Landrum, H. Leone, A.J. Longwell, D.C. MacLaren, L.E. Medlin, S.D. Narveson, M.L. Piarson, J.M. Polloack, R.J. Raquel, J.M. Reznicek, G.S. Rogers, J.E. Smerick and R.M. Thompson, 199 lb. A preliminary report on binned general population data on six VNTR loci in Caucasians, Blacks and Hispanics from the United States. Crime Lab. Digest 18: 9–26.Google Scholar
  3. Callen, D.F., A.D. Thompson, Y. Shen, H.A. Phillips, R.I. Richards, J.C. Mulley and Sutherland, G.R., 1993. Incidence and origin of `null’ alleles in the (AC)n microsatellite markers. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 52: 922–927.Google Scholar
  4. Chakraborty, R., 1991. Statistical interpretation of DNA typing data. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 49: 895–897.Google Scholar
  5. Chakraborty, R., M. de Andrade, S.P. Daiger and B. Budowle, 1992. Apparent heterozygote deficiencies observed in DNA typing dataand their implications in forensic applications. Ann. Hum. Genet. 56: 45–57.Google Scholar
  6. Chakraborty, R. and L. Jin, 1992. Heterozygote deficiency, population substructure and their implications in DNA fingerprinting. Hum. Genet. 88: 267–272.Google Scholar
  7. Chakraborty, R. and L. Jin, 1993. A unified approach to study hypervariable polymorphisms: statistical considerations of determining relatedness and population distances. In DNA Fingerprinting: State of the Science. pp. 153–175. ed by S.D.J. Pena, R.Google Scholar
  8. Chakraborty, J.T. Epplen and A.J. Jeffreys. Birkhauser, Basel. Chakraborty, R. and K.K. Kidd, 1991. The utility of DNA typing in forensic work. Science 254: 1735–1739.Google Scholar
  9. Chakraborty, R., M.R. Srinivasan and M. de Andrade, 1993. Intraclass and interclass correlations of allele sizes within and between loci in DNA typing data. Genetics 133: 411–419.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Chakraborty, R., Y. Zhong, L. Jin and B. Budowle. 1994. Nondetectability of restriction fragments and independence of DNA-fragment sizes within and between loci in RFLP typing of DNA. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 55: 391–401.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, J.E., 1990. DNA fingerprinting for forensic identification: potential effects on data interpretation of subpopulation of heterogeneity and band number variability. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 46: 358–368.Google Scholar
  12. Devlin, B. and N. Risch, 1992. A note on Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium of VNTR data by using the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s fixed-bin method. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 51: 549–553.Google Scholar
  13. Devlin, B. and N. Risch, 1993. Physical properties of VNTR data, and their impact on a test of allelic independence. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 53: 324–329.Google Scholar
  14. Devlin, B., N. Risch and K. Roeder, 1990. No excess of homozygosity at loci used for DNA fingerprinting. Science 249: 1416–1420.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gart, J.J. and J. Nam, 1984. A score test for the possible presence of recessive alleles in generalized ABO-like genetic systems. Biometrics 40: 887–894.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gart, J.J. and J. Nam, 1988. The equivalence of two tests and models for HLA data with no observed double blanks. Biometrics 44: 869–873.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Geisser, S. and W. Johnson, 1992. Testing Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium on allelic data from VNTR loci. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 51: 1084–1088.Google Scholar
  18. Geisser, S. and W. Johnson, 1993. Testing independence of fragment lengths within VNTR loei. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 53: 1103–1106.Google Scholar
  19. Imanishi, T., T. Akaza, A. Kimura, K. Tokunaga and T. Gojobori, 1992. Allele and haplotype frequencies for HLA and complement loci in various ethnic groups. In: HLA 1991, Vol. 1. pp. 1065–1220. ed. by K. Tsuji, M. Aizawa and T. Sasazuki. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  20. Jeffreys, A.J., M. Turner and P. Dabenham, 1991. The efficiency of multilocus DNA fingerprinting probes for individualization and establishment of family relationships, determined from extensive casework. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 48: 824–840.Google Scholar
  21. Karlin, S., E.C. Cameron and P.T. Williams, 1981. Sibling and parent-offspring correlation estimation with variable family size. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78: 2664–2668.Google Scholar
  22. Koorey, D.J., G.A. Bishop and G.W. McCaughan, 1993. Allele non-amplification: a source of confusion in linkage studies employing microsatellite polymorphisms. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2: 289–291.Google Scholar
  23. Lander, E.S., 1989. DNA fingerprinting on trial. Nature 339: 501–505.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lander, E.S., 1991. Research on DNA typing catching up with courtroom applications. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 48: 819–823.Google Scholar
  25. Lewontin, R.C. and D.L. Hartl, 1991. Population genetics in forensic DNA typing. Science 254: 1745–1750.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. National.Pesaareb.0 uucil,NF.C.t. 1997 LMAT:cbnnlnagjn.Frmen sic Science. National Academy Press, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  27. Rao, C.R., 1973. Linear Statistical Inference and Its Applications. Wiley, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Risch, N. and B. Devlin, 1992. On the probability of matching DNA fingerprints. Science 255: 717–720.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Robertson, A. and W.G. Hill, 1984. Deviation from Hardy-Weinberg proportions: sampling variances and use in estimation of inbreeding coefficients, Genetics 107: 703–718.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Steinberger, E.M., L.D. Thompson and J.M. Hartmann, 1993. On the use of excess homozygosity for subpopulation detection. Mn. J. Hum. Genet. 52: 1275–1277.Google Scholar
  31. G. Tully, K.M. Sullivan and P. Gill. 1993. Analysis of 6 VNTR loci by `multiplex’ PCR and automated fluorescent detection. Hum. Genet. 92: 554–562.Google Scholar
  32. Weir, B.S., 1992a. Independence of VNTR alleles defined as fixed bins. Genetics 130: 873–887.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Weir, B.S., 1992b. Independence of VNTR alleles defined as floating bins. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 51: 992–997.Google Scholar
  34. Weir, B.S., 1992e. Population genetics in the forensic DNA database. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 89: 11654–11659.Google Scholar
  35. Weir, B.S., 1993. Independence tests for VNTR alleles defined by quantile bins. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 53: 1107–1113.Google Scholar
  36. Weir, B.S. and C.C. Cockerham, 1984. Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38: 1358–1370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ranajit Chakraborty
    • 1
  • Zhaojue Li
    • 1
  1. 1.Human Genetics CenterThe University of Texas Houston Health Science CenterHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations