Forensic Science International: Genetics 5 (2011) 291–296

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Forensic Science International: Genetics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fsig

Disaster victim investigation recommendations from two simulated mass disaster

scenarios utilized for user acceptance testing CODIS 6.0
Laurie Bradford *, Jennifer Heal, Jeff Anderson, Nichole Faragher, Kristin Duval, Sylvain Lalonde
National DNA Data Bank, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, 1200 Vanier Parkway, Room 46, Laboratory Building, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0R2, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Members of the National DNA Data Bank (NDDB) of Canada designed and searched two simulated mass
Received 4 January 2010 disaster (MD) scenarios for User Acceptance Testing (UAT) of the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS)
Received in revised form 6 May 2010 6.0, developed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the US Department of Justice. A simulated
Accepted 15 May 2010
airplane MD and inland Tsunami MD were designed representing a closed and open environment
respectively. An in-house software program was written to randomly generate DNA profiles from a mock
Keywords: Caucasian population database. As part of the UAT, these two MDs were searched separately using CODIS
CODIS 6.0
6.0. The new options available for identity and pedigree searching in addition to the inclusion of
Mass disaster
mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Y-STR (short tandem repeat) information in CODIS 6.0, led to rapid
Disaster Victim Identification
DNA identification of all victims. A Joint Pedigree Likelihood Ratio (JPLR) was calculated from the pedigree
Joint Pedigree Likelihood Ratio searches and ranks were stored in Rank Manager providing confidence to the user in assigning an
Pedigree tree searching Unidentified Human Remain (UHR) to a pedigree tree. Analyses of the results indicated that primary
relatives were more useful in Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) compared to secondary or tertiary
relatives and that inclusion of mtDNA and/or Y-STR technologies helped to link family units together as
shown by the software searches. It is recommended that UHRs have as many informative loci possible to
assist with their identification. CODIS 6.0 is a valuable technological tool for rapidly and confidently
identifying victims of mass disasters.
Crown Copyright ß 2010 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Mass fatality incidents (MFIs), also known as mass disasters, are
caused by accidental catastrophes such as airplane crashes, natural
occurrences such as Tsunamis and intentional acts such as terrorist
attacks. These incidents generally lead to a high death toll and
mass destruction of property [1,2]. On September 2nd 1998, Swiss
Air Flight 111 crashed in the ocean off the coast of Peggy’s Cove,
Nova Scotia, Canada [3,4]. Two hundred and twenty nine
passengers and crew members perished leaving investigators
with 1277 human remains to identify [3,4]. This is an example of a
closed mass disaster where the victims were potentially known by
the airplane manifest. Open environment mass disasters like the
Asian Tsunami that occurred on December 26th 2004 and the
Abbreviations: DVI, Disaster Victim Identification; MD, mass disaster; MFI, mass
fatality incident; CODIS, combined DNA index system; DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid;
NDDB, National DNA Data Bank of Canada; RCMP, Royal Canadian Mounted Police;
FBI, Federal Bureau of Investigation; UAT, user acceptance testing; STR, short
tandem repeat; Y-STR, Y chromosome short tandem repeat; mtDNA, mitochondrial
DNA sequence; UHR, unidentified human remain; MP, missing person; bp, base
pair; LR, likelihood ratio; CLR, combined likelihood ratio; JPLR, joint Pedigree
Likelihood Ratio.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 613 993 8906; fax: +1 613 993 9944.
E-mail address: laurie.bradford@rcmp-grc.gc.ca (L. Bradford).
World Trade Center attack in New York City on September 11th
2001, were associated with a larger number of victims who were
not known [2,5–9].
DNA typing is a robust, consistent and reliable technique ideally
suited for identifying victims of mass disasters [3]. Even highly
degraded body remains can be typed using STRs (100–400 base pairs
(bp)) [7]. For the above-mentioned mass disasters unidentified
human remains and reference samples from biological relatives
were typed using AmpF‘STR1 Profiler PlusTM and AmpF‘STR1
COfilerTM kits (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA) [2–4,6,8].
In recent years, Y-STR and mtDNA techniques have assisted in
victim identifications. Y-STRs and mtDNA are haplotypes that are
not subject to recombination events [6]. Barring mutations, they
are consistent across generations. Y-STR inheritance is via the
paternal side and only occurs in males. MtDNA is inherited
maternally and is passed on to all offspring [7,10,11]. The
disadvantage to using only Y-STRs and mtDNA is that the genetic
information is not discriminating at an individual level. Entire
families will have the same Y-STR profile for the paternal lines and
mtDNA sequences for all maternal lines, with the exception of
mutations and heteroplasmy [10,11].
Mass fatality incidences pose a unique challenge for scientists
attempting to identify the victim’s remains for their return to
family members. The proper identification of victims is dependent

1872-4973/$ – see front matter . Crown Copyright ß 2010 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2010.05.005

Downloaded for Ryo Edogawa (ryoedogawa@gmail.com) at Universitas Padjadjaran from ClinicalKey.com by Elsevier on December 11, 2017.
For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright ©2017. Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
292 L. Bradford et al. / Forensic Science International: Genetics 5 (2011) 291–296
on: the number of UHRs; cause of death and extent of body
fragmentation; DNA degradation; recovery of the remains;
integrity of the samples and the type of familial DNA reference
samples available to aid the investigation [1,2,11]. Direct reference
samples (DRS), also referred to as exemplar samples or personal
effects, are samples directly taken from the victim or their personal
belongings [2–7]. In the past, direct reference samples could not
always be confidently assigned to a victim [4]. Other consider-
ations in identification include the occurrence of genetic core
repeat slip mutations between parents and offspring where the
slippage is by one or two repeat units (e.g. 4–8 bp), the presence of
rare alleles and the more common variants where the slippage may be
off by only 1 or 2 bp [3,4,7]. Additionally, high impact mass disasters
like airplane crashes can lead to the occurrence of comingled remains,
resulting in victim profiles that appear as mixtures requiring
interpretation [2–4,6,7,11].
CODIS 6.0 is a software program designed with new features for
identifying victims of mass fatality incidences and on-going missing
persons programs. One feature of CODIS 6.0 is the redesigned, user-
friendly interface. Navigation through the many software modules is
improved and more than one window is accessible at one time.
Identity searches are still available and a new search feature referred
to as Pedigree searching has been added. Pedigree trees can be
generated in the new module Pedigree Tree Designer where
relatives are associated to the pedigree tree and can be saved in
Pedigree Tree Manager. The entire pedigree tree is searched against
all of the UHRs to find a suitable rank with the associated relative
DNA information. The ranks are displayed in the Rank Manager
module of CODIS 6.0 where all the search results can be reviewed.
Additionally Y-STRs and mtDNA can be added to assist in victim
identification. Metadata (unique non-DNA identifying pieces of
information specific to a victim) can also be added for a victim in the
new software program and used to assist in their identification.
The Pedigree searching feature uses the kinship calculations
and produces a Joint Pedigree Likelihood Ratio (JPLR). The JPLR is
the ratio of the probability of the missing individuals DNA profile
being related to the pedigree tree (containing at least one relative’s
DNA information) compared to their DNA profile not being related
to the pedigree tree. This gives the CODIS 6.0 user greater
confidence in assigning a UHR to a specific pedigree tree and leads
to a reduction in fortuitous matches. The statistical calculations,
inclusion of new identification technologies and data management
capabilities were shown to be assets in victim identification.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Simulated airplane and Tsunami MD design
Two simulated mass disasters, an airplane crash representing a
closed environment mass disaster and a Tsunami representing an
open environment mass disaster, were designed by members of
the National DNA Data Bank (NDDB) of the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police (RCMP) for user acceptance testing (UAT) of a
CODIS 6.0 pre-release package. Actual mass disasters were used as
a guide in designing data that would challenge both the software
program and the users during the testing phase. These mass
disaster scenarios were created to test the features of CODIS 6.0,
and specifically the pedigree searching feature and the outcome of
the JPLR calculations. The data files are available to law
enforcement agencies only.
The simulated airplane mass disaster was designed first. The
airplane model used for the mock mass disaster was a Boeing 737
capable of carrying 189 passengers plus a pilot, co-pilot and 6 crew
members [12]. A person was assigned to each seat on the manifest
in addition to a full crew complement. Names were created for
each person and familial relations were delineated and pedigree
Downloaded for Ryo Edogawa (ryoedogawa@gmail.com) at Universitas Padjadjaran from ClinicalKey.com by Elsevier on December 11, 2017.
For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright ©2017. Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Table 1
A breakdown of the pedigree tree statistics for the victims of the airplane and
Tsunami mass disasters.
Mass disaster Relative type Percentage of total
Airplane Primary only 84.1
Two primary 44.7
Primary and secondary 11.2
Secondary only 4.7
Tsunami Primary only 81.7
Two primary 47.2
Primary and secondary 11.3
Secondary only 7
trees were then developed for each person on the plane. In total, 79
pedigree trees were drawn. They were designed to include primary
and/or secondary relatives with some containing a lot, or very little
family information in order to test the software capabilities
(Table 1). For the purpose of the user acceptance testing, primary
relatives included biological parents, children and full-siblings.
Secondary relatives included grandparents, grandchildren, half-
siblings, aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews. In some cases the
entire family was on the airplane and all were victims. There were
pedigree trees where the biological father was not known and
where a child was adopted so no biological relative information
was made available.
The airplane was broken apart in a simulated crash and a grid
was drawn over the crash site and labelled in meters-squared
based on an Interpol gridding system [13,14]. The UHR naming
convention was based on the World Trade Center mass fatality
incident and Interpol guidelines and required a maximum of 25
characters for CODIS 6.0. It consisted of a unique mass disaster
number, a unique investigator’s number, the UHR number
assigned by that investigator and the grid location of the body
or part based on the X and Y coordinates [9,14].
The relatives were named based on the mass disaster number
followed by the relationship to the victim(s) and the manifest seat
number [8]. The manifest was numbered consecutively in order of
the seat numbers.
To aid in developing the number of STR profiles required for a
project of this scale, the NDDB information technology support
member created an Access database pedigree-generating software
program. The program is able to calculate up to 15 DNA profiles
within multiple generations of a pedigree. The AmpF‘STR1 Profiler
PlusTM and AmpF‘STR1 COfilerTM (Applied Biosystems, Foster City,
CA) STR profiles came from a database of over 100,000 randomly
generated profiles that were formed using a weighted random
number generator created by Dr. B. Leclair (Myriad Genetics, Salt
Lake City, UT) (Dr. B. Leclair, personal communication). The allele
frequencies were representative of a standard Caucasian popula-
tion and these frequencies came from the validation studies
conducted at the RCMP for the AmpF‘STR1 Profiler PlusTM and
AmpF‘STR1 COfilerTM kits (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA).
An additional feature of the program is that all generated profiles
are editable and customizable to suit project requirements, for
example creating partial profiles or adding mutations.
STR DNA profiles were generated for each victim and available
relative(s) in the pedigree tree. In total there were 245 UHR profiles
generated from whole bodies and body parts and 215 profiles from
relatives. Some of the UHR DNA profiles were made to be partial
profiles consistent with true findings from airplane mass disasters
(Table 2). The partial profiles were created only from complete
CODIS 13 loci profiles and were very reasonable having at least 9
loci present with some allele dropout present in some of the loci,
and exceeding the NDDB’s current requirement of having at least 7
loci for CODIS searching. For the purpose of the UAT, we did not
differentiate between partial and incomplete profiles. The mock
 L. Bradford et al. / Forensic Science International: Genetics 5 (2011) 291–296
Table 2
DNA profile breakdowns for the UHRs in the airplane and Tsunami mass disasters
after building representative specimens.
Mass disaster Profile type Percentage of total profiles
Airplane Complete 73.30%
Partial 17.30%
Profiler PlusTM 7.30%
Mixtures/comingled 2.1
Tsunami Complete 98.9
Partial 1.1
mass disaster included variants, rare alleles, mutations, comingled
remains and direct reference samples presumed to be for a victim
when they were not [4]. Additionally, the disaster data included a
trisomy and a chimera to test the software capabilities.
Y-STR profiles were created based on the loci from the
AmpF‘STR1 YFilerTM kit (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA).
Two Y-STR databases were used to create a total of 36 simulated Y-
STR profiles for the victims and relatives of the mass disaster
[10,15,16]. The Health Science Center from the University of North
Texas supplied mtDNA sequences for 58 victims and their relatives
and they also reviewed the Y-STR profiles confirming that they
were representative profiles (Dr. J. Planz, personal communica-
tion).
Seventy-nine direct reference sample profiles were created for
the victims. The exemplar sources included toothbrushes, hair-
brushes, personal hygiene items (i.e. feminine hygiene products,
diapers, etc.), underwear and an ‘‘other’’ category (i.e. tissue biopsy
samples) consistent with Interpol guidelines and the source types
used in the Swiss Air flight 111 mass disaster investigation
[4,13,14]. These direct reference samples were named based on the
order families and close acquaintances of the victims reported to
the investigators.
Metadata was also utilized in victim identification. The
metadata that included: tattoos; piercings; X-rays of broken
bones; dental X-rays and any unique identifying piece of
information specific to a MP, was used to narrow down the
identification to one individual. Metadata was generated for 24
victims and linked to their direct reference sample profiles.
The Tsunami mass disaster data was generated in a similar
manner to the Airplane mass disaster however it was representa-
tive of an open environment. A total of 82 pedigree trees were
created for the Tsunami mass disaster consisting of primary,
secondary and tertiary relatives. Not all of the persons reported
missing were victims and not all victims of this disaster were
reported missing, indicative of what might occur in an actual open
environment mass disaster.
A grid was drawn over satellite photos of the disaster site, Tofte,
Minnesota, USA, based on a scale of 30 m squared [17]. The naming
convention for the relatives and direct reference samples differed
due to the grid format and absence of a known victim list. Similar to
the airplane mass disaster, the UHR naming convention composed
of four parts included a mass disaster number, investigator
number, whole body or body part number found by the
investigator and the grid location based on the x and y coordinates.
Consequently, relatives were named based on mass disaster
number, the order the relatives reported to the mass disaster
investigative team and by their relationship to the victim(s).
Once more the STR DNA profiles were generated for each victim
and available relative(s) in the pedigree trees. In total there were
228 UHR profiles generated and 132 relative profiles. Very few of
the UHR DNA profiles were partial in the Tsunami mass disaster.
The principles for variants, rare alleles and mutations were applied
here as in the airplane mass disaster. Included were 38 victims
with Y-STR profiles created in the same fashion as the airplane
Downloaded for Ryo Edogawa (ryoedogawa@gmail.com) at Universitas Padjadjaran from ClinicalKey.com by Elsevier on December 11, 2017.
For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright ©2017. Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
293
mass disaster and 62 victims and associated relatives, with mtDNA
sequences supplied by the University of North Texas.
In this case, 55 exemplar profiles were created to help identify
the victims. These were produced in a similar fashion to the
airplane mass disaster. Metadata was added for 26 victims for
further assistance in their identification.
Finally, Coroner’s Reports and death certificates were designed
and generated for each victim for both disasters. The reports
included: all body parts associated with a victim and the associated
STR DNA profile(s); Y-STR profile data and mtDNA data if available;
relative STR DNA profiles including their Y-STR and mtDNA data if
available and the exemplar(s) STR DNA profile(s) associated with
that victim if provided.
In an attempt to best simulate a true mass disaster, the
scientists who performed the data analysis were different
scientists than those who developed the mass disaster scenarios
and created the data. The data developers acted as coroners for the
mock mass disasters. Their role was to confirm the identity of the
victims and issue a death certificate as per a genuine mass disaster
[11].
2.2. Statistical analysis
After completion of the UAT, the data from both simulated mass
disaster scenarios were combined for statistical analysis as the
searching protocols for each were the same. The statistical analysis
was performed using a Kruskal–Wallis test or two-sample
Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Chi-square tests were performed to
test the significance between variable groups. The statistical
calculations based on the analyses performed were expected to
reflect the importance of using primary relatives in victim
identification. Having more primary relatives available was
expected to show a significant impact in victim identification.
Secondary relatives, in conjunction with primary relatives, were
expected to contribute towards victim identification. Additionally
the Combined Likelihood Ratios (CLR) which combine the JPLR
with mtDNA and/or Y-STR likelihood ratios were predicted to
improve confidence when included. Comparisons of complete
profiles, partial profiles and Profiler PlusTM only profiles demon-
strated the importance of having as many loci typed for each victim
when possible.
2.3. CODIS data imports and searching protocols
For each mass disaster scenario, CODIS import files were
created for the UHR, relative and exemplar profiles. For the purpose
of our user acceptance testing, separate import files were created
for the mtDNA profiles and the Y-STR profiles, however, the STR
and Y-STR can be contained in the same file. All mass disaster
profiles provided were imported into CODIS 6.0, using a server/
workstation computer. The server was a Dell PowerEdge 1900
(4 GB Ram) with a Dual Processor Intel Xeon E5310. It contained a
160 GB hard drive, a gigabit Ethernet and ran on a Microsoft1
Windows Server 2003 and SQL Server 2005. For further informa-
tion detailing configurations and searching procedures please see
the supplemental information.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. CODIS 6.0 statistical calculations
CODIS 6.0 software provided a combined likelihood ratio (CLR),
JPLR and mtDNA and/or Y-STR DNA likelihood ratios (LRs)
separately resulting from the Pedigree searching feature. The
combined likelihood ratio includes the JPLR and likelihood ratios
from the inclusion of mtDNA and/or Y-STR profiles for a pedigree
294 L. Bradford et al. / Forensic Science International: Genetics 5 (2011) 291–296
Table 3
A breakdown of the average JPLR, mtDNA LR, Y-STR LR and CLR for both mass
disaster scenarios.
Average JPLR Average Average Average CLR
mtDNA LR Y-STR LR
Airplane 7.55E+11 884 3450 3.35E+16
N = 163 N = 56 N = 32 N = 172
Tsunami 9.39E+17 902 2520 1.16E+21
N = 176 N = 54 N = 25 N = 177
tree. The JPLR alone does not include any additional information
from these DNA technologies. Average JPLR, mtDNA LR, Y-STR LR
and CLR values were calculated for each mass disaster scenario to
demonstrate the JPLR values obtained in the simulated mass
disaster searches (Table 3).
Initially, an UHR to UHR Identity search was done to be able to
add together samples from the same source (representative
sample). Then missing person vs. UHR Identity AutoSearches
were performed to match the victim’s direct reference sample(s)
with their UHR STR DNA profiles from the mass disaster. The
Identity AutoSearch compares the profiles at each locus and
returns matches based on how many alleles at each locus matched.
This is useful for identifying some victims prior to pedigree
searching.
The pedigree trees were searched individually and without the
use of the Pedigree AutoSearcher feature. This was done to solve the
mass disasters more efficiently by avoiding the high number of ranks
that would have occurred from an AutoSearch on this large of a scale.
The AutoSearch feature would have taken hours to complete in
terms of checking each match for the mass disasters and these were
mass disasters with fewer body remains than realistic mass disasters
therefore the pedigree trees were searched individually. This can be
partially attributed to the fact that all of the UHRs were entered into
CODIS 6.0 simultaneously, compared to an approach where they are
entered in batches. In a continuous missing persons program, the
Pedigree AutoSearcher would be used on a routine basis however the
challenges a mass disaster search imposes has specific differences
compared to a missing person search mainly that the victims are
frequently known and there will expectedly be a high number of
matches resulting from searching.
After a pedigree search, the JPLR calculations are returned in
Pedigree Searcher and viewed in Rank Manager in the descending
order. A true top rank can be defined as the expected result, i.e. the
victim, being returned and having the highest ranking JPLR for the
node being searched. In the case of the airplane mass disaster
scenario, 89.3% of the time the true rank was returned in the top 5
ranked candidates and 90.2% of the time the true rank was
returned in the top 10 ranked candidates. The average number of
ranks returned for a searched node was 3.8. For the Tsunami mass
disaster scenario 95.9% of the time the true rank was within the top
5 ranked candidates and 96.7% of the time the true rank was in the
top 10 ranked candidates. The average number of ranks returned
for a searched node in the Tsunami was 5.8.
For both simulated mass disaster searches, 99% of the true ranks
had JPLRs above 4.89E+1 and 95% of the true ranks were above
7.15E+02. Setting a minimum JPLR threshold from these numbers
would be possible, however the consequences of threshold settings
must be carefully weighed for each individual mass disaster.
In total 72 ranks were returned without a JPLR value and 6 of
these were the true ranks. This occurred due to the existence of
extremely partial profiles not fitting the mutation model set within
the software. Every UHR was successfully identified who could be
identified. These identifications were made with direct reference
samples, metadata, Pedigree Searches or Identity Searches. There
were 6 UHRs remaining unidentified in the Tsunami, which were
incorporated into the mass disaster design.
Downloaded for Ryo Edogawa (ryoedogawa@gmail.com) at Universitas Padjadjaran from ClinicalKey.com by Elsevier on December 11, 2017.
For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright ©2017. Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
There were several factors that affected the presence of true
ranks during the Pedigree searches. Very degraded profiles,
comingled samples, or UHRs having mutations beyond the
allowance of the mutation model were not returned as ranks
upon performing a Pedigree search. The mutation model accounts
for two core repeat unit mutations and minor slip mutations in a
pedigree tree. In these above cases, or where no ranks were
returned at all (for example, where a non-biological father was
associated to the pedigree tree), identity search(es) were
subsequently performed. It is therefore recommended that all
Pedigree searches be complemented with Identity searches, to
verify and confirm the ranks and to ensure that the true rank was
not missed. It is also important to note that some ranks will not be
returned if their JPLR values are below the set JPLR threshold of the
Pedigree search configurations.
Pedigree searches that return ranks must be viewed differently
from conventional search results using pair-wise likelihood ratios.
For instance, if two parents are associated to a pedigree tree and
three of their children are victims of a mass fatality incident, then
the returned ranks should include all three children, even though
only one node is being searched. The rank returned for the node
that is being searched is referred to as the expected rank by the
authors. Subsequently, the other two children are not fortuitous
ranks as they are part of the pedigree tree being searched and are
equivalent to the searched node. They are also true ranks and
referred to as equivalent ranks by the authors. Associated ranks refer
to ranks returned for a related, non-equivalent node that belong to
a different generation of the pedigree tree with the exception of
cousins who are from the same generation. Take for example a
pedigree tree with two children typed, with their parents and
grandparents unknown. If a Pedigree Search is performed
searching the father node then the father will be returned as
the expected rank and the mother will be returned as an equivalent
rank (Pedigree searches are not Amelogenin gender dependent
however gender can be set in metadata and used as a filter) and the
grandparents will be returned as associated ranks.
A fortuitous rank is any rank that is returned and does not fall
under the category of expected, equivalent or associated rank for
that pedigree tree. They occur whereby a victim appears to be
related to the kin but in fact they are not [1,2,6]. It is an STR DNA
profile incorrectly associated with the pedigree tree being
searched. It has been suggested that inclusion of more relative’s
information may prevent or reduce the occurrence of true
fortuitous ranks [4]. In many cases, these can also be attributed
to common alleles in the profiles. These matches can be avoided by
using more DNA information such as mtDNA or Y-STRs and having
more primary relatives available for kinship analysis. The existence
of mutations must be considered in data searching and the
leniency allowed in search parameters can lead to more fortuitous
matches [6]. The occurrence of fortuitous matches is greatly
reduced in CODIS 6.0.
3.2. Contribution of primary relatives
Both primary and secondary relatives contribute to victim
identification. Primary relatives consisting of parents, offspring
and full-siblings are ideal contributors for identifying victims.
Having at least two primary relatives available in a pedigree tree is
the current recommendation for missing persons and mass
Disaster Victim Identification (Dr. D. Hares, personal communica-
tion) [11,18]. The highest contributing primary relatives are the
parents and children of a missing individual [11]. Siblings are not
ideal primary contributors due to varying degrees of relatedness
between each other. This was supported by the combined
statistical analysis of the mass disaster data sets. The number of
primary contributing relatives was tested over both mass disaster
 L. Bradford et al. / Forensic Science International: Genetics 5 (2011) 291–296
Table 4
Results from a Kruskal–Wallis statistical analysis demonstrating the mean ranks
and mean JPLR values compared for victims having 1, 2 or 3 plus primary relatives
available in their pedigree tree.
No. primary relatives Mean JPLR Mean rank
1 1.80E+11 78.69
N = 100
2 1.06E+18 189.75
N = 156
3+ 3.74E+14 200.84
N = 55
Total N = 311
scenarios. The more information made available in a pedigree tree
from first degree relatives, the fewer number of ranks would be
returned. Only the UHRs consistent with that pedigree tree were
returned as ranks from the search, further reducing the number of
fortuitous ranks. It was noted that the JPLR values increased
significantly as more primary relatives were made available in a
pedigree tree (Table 4). However there was not a significant
difference seen when three or more primary relatives were made
available compared to two (Table 4). An exception is when the
parents are unavailable and siblings are able to provide DNA
information. In this circumstance it is desirable to have more
siblings available showing contribution of common alleles from
the parents.
3.3. Relationship of relatives to victims
Secondary relatives, such as grandparents, grandchildren, half-
siblings, aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews can provide DNA
information in a pedigree tree and having both maternal and
paternal secondary relatives is beneficial [2,4,5,8,9,13,19]. This was
investigated statistically when the simulated data was analyzed to
determine if the primary relatives provided more useful informa-
tion when identifying victims compared to secondary relatives.
Overall there was a significant difference seen between victims
with primary relatives only, victims with secondary and tertiary
relatives and victims with all relative types available (Table 5).
There was also a significant difference seen between victims with
primary relatives only and victims with all relative types available
(Table 5).
The number of ranks generated during a Pedigree Search was
mostly dependent on the degree of relationship between the
relatives in the pedigree tree and the UHR. For example, a pedigree
tree with only secondary and/or tertiary relative(s) would generate
more ranks, mostly fortuitous ranks, than a pedigree tree
incorporating primary relatives. Siblings also seemed to generate
more ranks compared to parents who generated fewer ranks
overall most likely attributed to varying degrees of relatedness
between each other. Our results indicate that primary relatives
alone are better than a combination of primary, secondary and in
very few cases tertiary relatives. Again this may be caused by a
Table 5
Results from a Kruskal–Wallis statistical analysis demonstrating the mean ranks
and mean JPLR values compared to victims having only primary relatives, secondary
and tertiary relatives and all relative types available in their pedigree tree.
Group Mean JPLR Mean rank
1 Primary relatives only 6.01E+17 182.04
N = 275
2 Secondary and tertiary relatives 1.57E+5 25.4
N = 20
3 Primary, secondary and tertiary relatives 5.96E+10 121.56
N = 36
Total N = 331
Downloaded for Ryo Edogawa (ryoedogawa@gmail.com) at Universitas Padjadjaran from ClinicalKey.com by Elsevier on December 11, 2017.
For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright ©2017. Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
295
confounding effect when using secondary and/or tertiary relatives
with primary relatives. The addition of secondary and/or tertiary
relatives to a pedigree tree seems to negatively contribute to
confidence in assigning a UHR to a missing person node. This may
explain the trend seen when the JPLR values are lower for pedigree
trees with all relative types compared to pedigree trees with only
primary relatives available (Table 5).
The results strongly suggest that the primary relatives provide
the most genetic information for victim identification compared to
secondary and tertiary relatives. Alleles from primary relatives will
be in a victim’s STR DNA profile while additional non-shared alleles
present in secondary and tertiary relatives are not often present in
the victim’s profile. They may only serve to expand the allelic pool
of possibilities, thereby potentially decreasing the JPLRs or
confidence in the relatedness. The type of primary relative is
probably a factor as parents would potentially provide more useful
genetic information even compared to full-siblings, who may or
may not share a high genetic relatedness.
3.4. Contribution of mtDNA and Y-STR
As expected, the secondary and/or tertiary relatives were not
strong contributors for victim identification unless additional
technologies, such as mtDNA and Y-STRs, were provided. This was
noted by the higher combined likelihood ratio values assigned to
UHRs with the addition of one or both of these technologies. There
was a significant difference seen when comparing victims with
additional DNA technologies available and victims with no
additional information available (Table 6). Therefore the inclusion
of mtDNA and/or Y-STR technologies improved the CLR for victims
and in turn contributed positively to victim identification. The
addition of more DNA technologies increases discrimination and
certainty in assigning a victim to a pedigree tree.
3.5. Importance of profile type
Additionally, it is recommended to have complete CODIS 13
core loci profiles for UHRs. The partial profiles contained a
minimum of 8 complete loci and 2 partial loci where an allele had
dropped out. There was no significant difference between the
complete 13 CODIS core loci profiles, partial profiles based from
the complete profiles and AmpF‘STR1 Profiler PlusTM profiles,
however it is always beneficial to have more loci available in victim
identification (Table 7).
Alternative methods may be used to further identify UHRs from
the same family. Direct reference samples can be used to clarify
Pedigree Search results. For example when two siblings of the
same gender are both returned as high ranks to a pedigree tree,
they can be distinguished by their exemplar DNA profiles [2]. It is
also recommended that more than one exemplar sample be
submitted for each victim to counter the possibility of shared
personal effects and partial profiles [4]. Metadata entered in CODIS
6.0 can be referenced for further individual identification.
Table 6
Results from a Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistical analysis showing the mean LRs for
victims who had a JPLR value with no additional DNA information compared to
victims who had a CLR with mtDNA and/or Y-STR DNA information available for
their pedigree searches.
Group Mean LR value
JPLR with no additional information 2.59E+12
N = 183
CLR (JPLR plus mtDNA and/or Y-STR information) 1.21E+19
N = 164
Total N = 347
296 L. Bradford et al. / Forensic Science International: Genetics 5 (2011) 291–296

Table 7 processes; Dr. John Butler (NIST) for Y-STR databases and
Results from a Kruskal–Wallis statistical analysis comparing mean ranks from
references; Insp. Kevin Miller (RCMP) for providing invaluable
victims with complete 13 CODIS loci profiles, victims with partial profiles and
victims with only Profiler PlusTM DNA profiles used in their identifications. Disaster Victim Identification information; the NDDB CODIS
administrators and Dave Morissette (Acting OIC NDDB) for their
Group N value Mean rank
assistance and support; Centre of Forensic Science (Toronto, ON,
1 Complete profile 143 90.33 CA); Laboratoire de sciences judiciaires et de médecine légale
2 Partial profile 22 89.68 (Montréal, QC, CA); RCMP National Forensic Services CODIS
3 AmpF‘STR1 Profiler PlusTMprofile 12 71.83
administrators; Dr. Darrell Williams (RCMP) for his analysis of
Total 177 our data; Dr. George Carmody for his review of our database and
statistical interpretation; and Tim Zolandz, Dr. Douglas Hares,
Scott Carey and Jennifer Luttman for their assistance in reviewing a
Table 8 draft of this paper. We appreciate the strong support and keen
Breakdown of the average JPLR and CLR values for all profile types in the airplane
interest from all involved in making our contribution to the FBI
and Tsunami mass disasters scenarios.
UAT testing of CODIS 6.0 a success.
Complete Partial Profiler PlusTM Mixed profiles
profiles profiles profiles
Appendix A. Supplementary data
JPLR 1.58E+14 4.16E+10 1.97E+09 1.59E+05
N = 127 N = 20 N = 12 N=3
9.55E+17 2.12E+07 Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
N = 173 N=2 the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2010.05.005.
CLR 4.53E+16 2.64E+13 3.91E+12 1.20E+05
N = 127 N = 28 N = 12 N=4
1.18E+21 7.30E+10
N = 174 N=2 References
N.B. The Tsunami mean values are shown in bold.
[1] A. Alonso, P. Martin, C. Albarrán, P. Garcia, L. Fernández de Simon, M. Iturralde, A.
Fernández-Rodriguez, I. Atienza, J. Capilla, J. Garcia-Hirschfeld, P. Martinez, G.
The creation of a victim list and use of a manifest when available Vallejo, O. Garcia, E. Garcia, P. Real, D. Álvarez, A. León, M. Sancho, Challenges of
DNA profiling in mass disaster investigations, Croatian Medical Journal 46 (4)
is a valuable option as has been recommended by International (2005) 540–548.
Society for Forensic Genetics (ISFG) [11]. The victims can be cross- [2] B. Leclair, R. Shaler, G. Carmody, K. Eliason, B. Hendrickson, T. Judkins, M. Norton,
referenced with the list as they are identified creating a record of C. Sears, T. Scholl, Bioinformatics and human identification in mass fatality
ncidents: the World Trade Center disaster, Journal of Forensic Sciences 52 (4)
which victims remain to be identified. Even in the case of an open (2007) 806–819.
mass disaster a list can be made of reported missing individuals [3] B. Leclair, Large-scale comparative genotyping and kinship analysis: evolution in
from the relative and investigator interviews. its use for human identification in mass fatality incidents and missing persons
databasing, International Congress Series 261 (2004) 42–44.
[4] B. Leclair, C. Frégeau, K. Bowen, R. Fourney, Enhanced Kinship Analysis and STR-
4. Conclusions based DNA typing for human identification in mass fatality incidents: the Swissair
Flight 111 disaster, Journal of Forensic Sciences 49 (5) (2004) 939–953.
[5] L. Biesecker, J. Bailey-Wilson, J. Ballantyne, H. Baum, F. Bieber, C. Brenner, B.
CODIS 6.0 offers many new features useful for the identification Budowle, J. Butler, G. Carmody, P. Michael Conneally, B. Duceman, A. Eisenberg, L.
of mass disaster victims and missing persons. The new user Forman, K. Kidd, B. Leclair, S. Niezgoda, T. Parsons, E. Pugh, R. Shaler, S. Sherry, A.
interface allows for multiple tabs to be open simultaneously, Sozer, A. Walsh, DNA Identifications after the 9/11 world trade center attack,
Science 310 (2005) 1122–1123.
allowing for smoother navigation while searching and ease of
[6] C. Brenner, B. Weir, Issues and strategies in the DNA identification of World Trade
associating DNA information to pedigree trees in Pedigree Tree Center victims, Theoretical Population Biology 63 (2003) 173–178.
Designer. In addition CODIS 6.0 includes the option of using other [7] B. Budowle, F. Bieber, A. Eisenberg, Forensic aspects of mass disasters: strategic
DNA technologies to assist identifications. Identity searching and considerations for DNA-based human identification, Legal Medicine 7 (2005)
230–243.
the new feature Pedigree Searching, are both available as options [8] B. Leclair, S. Niezgoda, G. Carmody, R. Shaler, Kinship analysis and human
for investigating missing persons and mass disaster identification identification in mass disasters: the use of MASS DISASTERKAP for the world
processes. The new features increase the efficiency of identifying trade center tragedy, in: 13th International Symposium on Human Identification,
2002.
UHRs from mass disasters and reduce the occurrence of fortuitous [9] Lessons Learned from 9/11: DNA Identification in Mass Fatality Incidents. U.S.
matches that cause delays in mass disaster investigations. The Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 2006.
UHRs are identified rapidly and with confidence, provided in the [10] J. Butler, B. McCord, Y-STRs and mtDNA, in: 58th Annual Meeting of the American
Academy of Forensic Sciences, Seattle, Washington, 2006.
calculation of a JPLR or combined likelihood ratio (CLR) value [11] M. Prinz, A. Carracedo, W.R. Mayr, N. Morling, T.J. Parsons, A. Sajantila, R.
(Table 8). Scheithauer, H. Schmitter, P.M. Schneider, DNA Commission of the International
Society for Forensic Genetics (ISFG): recommendations regarding the role of
forensic genetics for disaster victim identification (DVI), Forensic Science Inter-
Acknowledgements
national Genetics 1 (2007) 3–12.
[12] KLM Website, www.klm.com/travel/gb_en/travel_information/on_board/sea
The authors wish to thank Dr. John Planz, Steve Gammon and ting_plans/737-900.htm.
[13] http://www.interpol.int/Public/DisasterVictim/.
Melody Josserand from the University of North Texas for their
[14] Interpol Disaster Guidelines. CBRN. Emergency Management.
generous review of our Y-STR profiles and for supplying our [15] NIST Website, http://www.cstl.nist.gov/div831/strbase/NISTpop.htmm.
anonymous mtDNA sequences. We thank Dr. Benoı̂t Leclair [16] Yhrd Website, www.yhrd.org/rcms/navigation/1000010.html.
(Myriad Genetics Inc., Salt Lake City) for the extensive database [17] http://www.mapquest.com/maps?city=Tofte&state=MN.
[18] SWGDAM Subcommittee on Missing Persons and Mass disasters (2008) (Dr. John
of DNA profiles; Dr. Chantal Frégeau and Dr. Ron Fourney (RCMP) Planz, UNT, Committee Chair).
for consultation on SwissAir Flight 111 victim identification [19] N. Ritter, Identifying remains: lessons learned from 9/11, NIJ 256 (2007).

Downloaded for Ryo Edogawa (ryoedogawa@gmail.com) at Universitas Padjadjaran from ClinicalKey.com by Elsevier on December 11, 2017.
For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright ©2017. Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.