Reliability

Newspaper articles

• How TrueAllele is used for forensic DNA evidence (June, 2011)
• TrueAllele was used in a terrorist case (February, 2012)
• TrueAllele solves incest rape mixtures (July, 2015)
• How TrueAllele helped exonerate an innocent man (July, 2016)

Magazine articles

• Perlin MW. Forensic science in the information age. Forensic Magazine. 2012;9(2):17-21.
• Perlin MW. Easy reporting of hard DNA: computer comfort in the courtroom. Forensic Magazine. 2012;9(4):32-7.
• Perlin MW, Galloway J. Computer DNA evidence interpretation in the Real IRA Massereene terrorist attack. Evidence Technology Magazine. 2012;10(3):20-3.
• Perlin MW, Miller KW. Kern County resolves the DNA mixture crisis. Forensic Magazine. 2014;11(4):8-12.
• Perlin MW. Hidden DNA evidence: exonerating the innocent. Forensic Magazine. 2018;15(1):10-12.
• Perlin MW, When DNA is not a gold standard: failing to interpret mixture evidence. The Champion, May, 2018; 42(4):50-56.
• Perlin MW, Suspect-centric bias in DNA mixture interpretation. Forensic Magazine, 2018;15(3):10-13.
• Perlin MW, Good answers to bad questions about DNA match statistics. Forensic Magazine, 2019;16(1):32-34.

Newsletters

• Cybergenetics newsletters provide background for nonspecialists
• Perlin MW. Cybergenetics TrueAllele technology enables objective analysis of previously unusable DNA evidence. MathWorks Newsletters: Technical Article. 2013:1-4.
• Perlin MW. DNA done right. FHC Experts for Law: Experts Forum Newsletter. 2013 Summer:4-7.

Book chapters

• Perlin MW. The Blairsville slaying and the dawn of DNA computing. In: Niapas A, author. Death Needs Answers: The Cold-Blooded Murder of Dr John Yelenic. New Kensington, PA: Grelin Press; 2013.
• Perlin MW. DNA Identification Science. In: Wecht CH, editor. Forensic Sciences. Albany, NY: LexisNexis® Matthew Bender®; 2021; Chapter 37C.

Validation Papers

Laboratory data (5)

• Perlin MW, Sinelnikov A. An information gap in DNA evidence interpretation. PLoS ONE. 2009;4(12):e8327.
• Ballantyne J, Hanson EK, Perlin MW. DNA mixture genotyping by probabilistic computer interpretation of binomially-sampled laser captured cell populations: combining quantitative data for greater identification information. Science & Justice. 2013;52(2):103-14.
• Perlin MW, Hornyak J, Sugimoto G, Miller K. TrueAllele® genotype identification on DNA mixtures containing up to five unknown contributors. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2015; 60(4):857-868.
• Greenspoon SA, Schiermeier-Wood L, Jenkins BC. Establishing the limits of TrueAllele® Casework: a validation study. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2015;60(5):1263-1276.
• Bauer DW, Butt N, Hornyak JM, Perlin MW. Validating TrueAllele® interpretation of DNA mixtures containing up to ten unknown contributors. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2020;65(2):380-398. [JFS 2020 Noteworthy Article]

Casework data (3)

• Perlin MW, Legler MM, Spencer CE, Smith JL, Allan WP, Belrose JL, Duceman BW. Validating TrueAllele® DNA mixture interpretation. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2011;56(6):1430-1447.
• Perlin MW, Belrose JL, Duceman BW. New York State TrueAllele® Casework validation study. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2013;58(6):1458-66.
• Perlin MW, Dormer K, Hornyak J, Schiermeier-Wood L, Greenspoon S. TrueAllele® Casework on Virginia DNA mixture evidence: computer and manual interpretation in 72 reported criminal cases. PLoS ONE. 2014:9(3):e92837.

Validation Studies

• Kadash K, Kozlowski BE, Biega LA, Duceman BW. Validation study of the TrueAllele® automated data review system. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2004;49(4):1-8.
• Perlin MW. Scientific validation of mixture interpretation methods. Promega's Seventeenth International Symposium on Human Identification, 2006 Oct 10-12; Nashville, TN.
• Cybergenetics. "TrueAllele® System 2 and Genotyper/Genescan Peak Heights and Orchid UK Data." Cybergenetics (Pittsburgh, PA), May 2007.
• Duceman BW, Perlin MW, Belrose JL. "New York State TrueAllele® Casework Developmental Validation." New York State Police Forensic Investigation Center (Albany, NY), Cybergenetics (Pittsburgh, PA), and Northeast Regional Forensic Institute (Albany, NY), February 2010.
• Cybergenetics and Orchid Cellmark. "TrueAllele® Volume Crime Validation Study." Cybergenetics (Pittsburgh, PA) and Orchid Cellmark (Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK), February 2010.
• Cybergenetics. "NYSP TrueAllele® Validation." Cybergenetics (Pittsburgh, PA), May 2011.
• Perlin M, Legler M, Galdi J. "Suffolk County TrueAllele® Validation." Cybergenetics (Pittsburgh, PA) and Suffolk County Crime Laboratory (Hauppauge, NY), May 2011.
• NSW Review Team. "Phase 1 Evaluation Report of Cybergenetics TrueAllele® Expert System." NSW Police Force (Lidcombe, New South Wales, Australia), July 2011.
• Sgueglia J, Harrington K. "Phase I: Internal Validation of TrueAllele Genetic Calculator as an Expert Assistant for Reads and Review of Data from Reported Sexual Assault Evidence." Massachusetts State Police Forensic and Technology Center (Maynard, MA), August 2011.
• Coble MD, Butler JM. "Exploring the Capabilities of Mixture Interpretation Using TrueAllele Software." National Institute for Standards and Technology (Gaithersburg, MD), September 2011.
• Cybergenetics. "Australia TrueAllele® Validation Report." Cybergenetics (Pittsburgh, PA), September 2011.
• Caponera J. "New York State Police Crime Laboratory System TrueAllele® Casework Validation Addendum." New York State Police Forensic Investigation Center (Albany, NY), June 2013.
• Perlin MW, Hornyak J, Caponera J, Duceman B. "New York State TrueAllele® Validation on DNA Mixtures of Known Composition." Cybergenetics (Pittsburgh, PA) and New York State Police Forensic Investigation Center (Albany, NY), October 2013.
• Caponera J. "New York State Police Crime Laboratory System TrueAllele® Casework Validation Addendum." New York State Police Forensic Investigation Center (Albany, NY), December 2013.
• Clarke MA, Hornyak J, Allan WP, Perlin MW. "TrueAllele® Casework Separates DNA Mixtures that Share Alleles." Cybergenetics (Pittsburgh, PA), March 2014.
• Hornyak J, Allan WP, Perlin MW. "TrueAllele® Casework Validation on PowerPlex® 21 Mixture Data." Cybergenetics (Pittsburgh, PA), March 2014.
• Hornyak J, Allan WP, Perlin MW. "TrueAllele® Validation on Minifiler™ Mixture Data." Cybergenetics (Pittsburgh, PA), July 2014.
• Hornyak J, Bowkley M, Perlin MW. "TrueAllele® Validation on PowerPlex® 16 HS Mixture Data." Cybergenetics (Pittsburgh, PA), July 2014.
• Hornyak J, Allan WP, Perlin MW. "TrueAllele® Validation on Identifiler® Plus Mixture Data." Cybergenetics (Pittsburgh, PA), August 2014.
• Amick G. "TrueAllele® Validation." Richland County Sheriff's Department (Columbia, SC), March 2015.
• Guest K, Ludvico L, Ferrara L, Perlin M. "Development of Kinship Mixtures and Subsequent Analysis Using TrueAllele® Casework." Master's Thesis, Duquesne University (Pittsburgh, PA), April 2015.
• Hornyak JM, Hebert T, Allan WP, Perlin MW. "Baltimore Police Department TrueAllele® Validation." Cybergenetics (Pittsburgh, PA) and Baltimore City Police Department Laboratory Section (Baltimore, MD), August 2015.
• Greenspoon S, Schiermeier-Wood L, Jenkins B. "Further Exploration of TrueAllele® Casework." Promega's Twenty Sixth International Symposium on Human Identification, Grapevine, TX, October 2015.
• Donahue J. "TrueAllele® Casework Validation." Beaufort County Sheriff's Office (Beaufort, SC), January 2016.
• Hornyak JM, Schmidt EM, Perlin MW. "Georgia Bureau of Investigation Forensic Biology Unit TrueAllele® Validation." Cybergenetics (Pittsburgh, PA) and Georgia Bureau of Investigation Forensic Biology Unit (Decatur, GA), September 2016.
• Legler MM, Harris BL, Booker CL, Perlin MW. "Acadiana Criminalistics Laboratory TrueAllele® Casework Validation." Cybergenetics (Pittsburgh, PA) and Acadiana Criminalistics Laboratory (New Iberia, LA), October 2016.
• Bauer DW, Butt N, Perlin MW. "Cuyahoga County TrueAllele® Validation Study." Cybergenetics (Pittsburgh, PA) and Cuyahoga County Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (Cleveland, OH), September 2016.
• Harris BL. "Acadiana Criminalistics Laboratory TrueAllele® Casework Validation Using Investigator® 24plex Kits & 2017 Server Upgrade Performance Check." Acadiana Criminalistics Laboratory (New Iberia, LA), May 2017.
• Schmidt EM, "TrueAllele® GlobalFiler™ Performance Check." Georgia Bureau of Investigation Forensic Biology Unit (Decatur, GA), August 2017.
• Hornyak JM, Brown CL, Perlin MW. "TrueAllele® Casework Validation of the PowerPlex® Fusion 6C STR Kit." Cybergenetics (Pittsburgh, PA) and Louisiana State Police Crime Laboratory (Baton Rouge, LA), July 2018.
• Sugimoto G. "Validation of the TrueAllele® Casework VUIer™ Kinship Application." Kern Regional Crime Laboratory (Bakersfield, CA), August 2019.
• Pujols BA, Browning BM, Bracamontes JM, Legler MM, Bauer DW, and Perlin MW. "TrueAllele® Casework Validation on Greenville County DNA Lab GlobalFiler™ Data." Cybergenetics (Pittsburgh, PA) and Greenville County Department of Public Safety Forensic DNA Laboratory (Greenville, SC), March 2020.
• Antillon S. "Deconvolution of DNA mixtures using replicate sampling and TrueAllele® mixture interpretation." Master's Thesis, George Mason University (Fairfax, VA), 2020.
• Chaudhry HS. "Peeling away uncertainty: A probabilistic approach to DNA mixture deconvolution." Master's Thesis, George Mason University (Fairfax, VA), 2020.
• Mole EE, Bracamontes JM, Fleming I, Legler MM, Perlin MW. "Metro Nashville Police Department Crime Laboratory TrueAllele® Casework Validation on PowerPlex® Fusion 6C data." Cybergenetics (Pittsburgh, PA) and Metro Nashville Police Department Crime Laboratory (Nashville, TN), June 2023.

Forensic Applications

World Trade Center DNA reanalysis – 18,500 victim remains and 2,700 missing people

• Perlin MW. Mass casualty identification through DNA analysis: overview, problems and pitfalls. In: Okoye MI, Wecht CH, editors. Forensic Investigation and Management of Mass Disasters. Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges Publishing Co; 2007;23-30.
• Perlin MW. Identifying human remains using TrueAllele® technology. In: Okoye MI, Wecht CH, editors. Forensic Investigation and Management of Mass Disasters. Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges Publishing Co; 2007;31-8.

The United States National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) provides forensic laboratories with Standard Reference Material (SRM) mixture DNA that uses TrueAllele technology as a calibration standard to assess mixture weight and genotype composition

• Kline MC, Butts ELR, Hill CR, Coble MD, Duewer DL, Butler JM. The new Standard Reference Material® 2391c: PCR-based DNA profiling standard. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series. 2011; available online October 26, 2011.
• Kline MC, Butts ELR, Hill CR, Coble MD, Duewer DL, Butler JM. The new Standard Reference Material® 2391c: PCR-based DNA profiling standard. 24th International Society of Forensic Genetics World Congress, Poster # P-348, Vienna, Austria, Aug 29 – Sep 3, 2011.
• Kline MC, Hill CR, Butts ELR, Duewer DL, Coble MD, Butler JM. Examination of DNA mixture proportion variability using multiple STR typing kits and NIST Standard Reference Material® 2391c Component D. Twenty Second International Symposium on Human Identification, Poster # 41, National Harbor, MD, October 3-6, 2011.
• National Institute of Standards and Technology, Certificate of Analysis, Standard Reference Material® (SRM) 2391c, PCR-Based DNA Profiling Standard.

Using TrueAllele as a laboratory instrument to measure DNA identification information

• See above Validation Paper: Ballantyne et al. Science & Justice. 2013;52(2):103-14.
• Stokes NA, Stanciua CE, Brocatoa ER, Ehrhardta CR, Greenspoon SA. Simplification of complex DNA profiles using front end cell separation and probabilistic modeling. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2018;36:205-212.

DNA Exonerations

Regulatory Approvals

• ANSI/NIST 2011 (§18.020, 18.021) (March, 2011) – probabilistic genotype data exchange
• New York State DNA Subcommittee (May 20, 2011) – TrueAllele Casework binding recommendation for forensic casework applications
• New York State Commission on Forensic Science (June 27, 2011) – TrueAllele Casework approval for forensic casework applications
• Virginia Scientific Advisory Committee (October 15, 2013) – TrueAllele validation accepted
• Virginia Forensic Science Board (October 16, 2013) – approved use of TrueAllele

Standards Compliance

Standards

• SWGDAM 2010 (§3.2.2) (January, 2010) – probabilistic genotype computer interpretation
• SWGDAM 2015 (June 15, 2015) – probabilistic genotyping validation guidelines
• ANSI/ASB Standard 020 (September 2018) – mixture validation and interpretation standards
• ANSI/ASB Standard 040 (September 2019) – DNA interpretation and comparison standards
• ANSI/ASB Standard 018 (July 2020) – probabilistic genotyping validation standards
• FBI QAS 2020 (Section 8) (July 1, 2020) – DNA quality assurance validation standards

Compliance

• TrueAllele compliance (updated July, 2023) – with SWGDAM validation guidelines
• TrueAllele compliance (July, 2023) – with ANSI/ASB Standard 020 validation standards
• TrueAllele compliance (July, 2023) – with ANSI/ASB Standard 040 interpretation standards
• TrueAllele compliance (July, 2023) – with ANSI/ASB Standard 018 validation standards
• TrueAllele compliance (July, 2023) – with FBI DNA quality assurance validation standards

Method Reports

• TrueAllele Casework process: standard operating procedures. Cybergenetics, February 2022.
• Perlin MW, TrueAllele methods: statistical model. Cybergenetics, March 2016.
• Perlin MW, Genotype likelihood ratio distributions and random match probability: generalization, calculation and application. Cybergenetics, July 2017.

General Acceptance

TrueAllele usage in law and science

• Cybergenetics has filed over 1,250 TrueAllele DNA match reports across 46 states. TrueAllele Technology has assisted over 530 governmental and nonprofit organizations. Over 175 public and private DNA labs have sent Cybergenetics data for TrueAllele analysis. TrueAllele testimony has been given in state, federal, military and foreign courts.
• Ten government crime laboratories in the United States use TrueAllele for DNA mixtures.
• TrueAllele. Admissibility and criminal cases for both prosecution and defense.
• Collaborations. Collaborative scientific research projects.
• Perlin MW. When good DNA goes bad. Journal of Forensic Research. 2013;S11:003.

TrueAllele method is well-suited for interpreting low-level DNA mixtures

• Kelly H, Bright JA, Curran J, Buckleton J. The interpretation of low level DNA mixtures. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2012 Mar;6(2):191-7.
• Kelly H, Bright J-A, Buckleton JS, Curran JM. A comparison of statistical models for the analysis of complex forensic DNA profiles. Science & Justice. 2013.
• Steele CD, Balding DJ. Statistical evaluation of forensic DNA profile evidence. Annu Rev Stat Appl. 2014;1:1-24.

Relevant scientific community develops and assesses probabilistic DNA interpretation

• Abstract Book, Ninth International Conference on Forensic Statistics and Inference (ICFIS), Leiden, The Netherlands, August, 2014
• Landscape Study of DNA Mixture Interpretation Software, Forensic Technology Center of Excellence (FTCoE), National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC, July, 2015.

Forensic community accepts that probabilistic genotyping works better than thresholds

• Coble MD, MIX13: Overview and Lessons Learned. Green Mountain DNA Conference, Burlington, VT, 2014
• Coble MD, Bright J-A. Probabilistic genotyping software: An overview. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2019 Jan;38(1):219-24.

Related Systems

LSD (Tseiwei Wang, United States)

Wang T, Xue N, Birdwell JD. Least-square deconvolution: a framework for interpreting short tandem repeat mixtures. J Forensic Sci. November 2006;51(6):1284-97.

MCMC (James Curran, New Zealand)

Curran JM. A MCMC method for resolving two person mixtures. Science & Justice. 2008;48(4): 168-177.

MixSep (Torben Tvedebrink, Denmark)

Tvedebrink T, Eriksen PS, Mogensen HS, Morling N. Identifying contributors of DNA mixtures by means of quantitative information of STR typing. J Comput Biol. 2012;19(7):887-902. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/mixsep/

STRmix (John Buckleton, New Zealand)

Taylor D, Bright J-A, Buckleton J. The interpretation of single source and mixed DNA profiles. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2013;7(5):516–28. http://strmix.com

DNA Insight (Roberto Puch-Solis, England)

Puch-Solis R, Rodgers L, Mazumder A, Pope S, Evett I, Curran J, Balding D. Evaluating forensic DNA profiles using peak heights, allowing for multiple donors, allelic dropout and stutters. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2013;7(5):555–63.

DNAmixtures (Robert Cowell, England)

Cowell RG, Graversen T, Lauritzen SL, Mortera J. Analysis of DNA mixtures with artefacts. Journal Royal Statistical Society, Series C Applied Statistics. 2015;64(1):1-48. http://dnamixtures.r-forge.r-project.org/

DNA•VIEW Mixture Solution (Charles Brenner, United States)

Brenner, C. The DNA•VIEW® Mixture Solution™. International Society for Forensic Genetics, Poster presentation. Krakow, Poland, September 2015. http://dna-view.com/#Mixtures

LikeLTD (David Balding, Australia)

Balding DJ, Steele CD. likeLTD v6.1: an illustrative analysis, explanation of the model, results of validation tests and version history. University College London, June 5, 2016. https://sites.google.com/site/baldingstatisticalgenetics/software/likeltd-r-forensic-dna-r-code

EuroForMix (Peter Gill, Europe)

Bleka Ø, Storvik G, Gill P. EuroForMix: An open source software based on a continuous model to evaluate STR DNA profiles from a mixture of contributors with artefacts. Forensic Sci Int Genet. March 2016;21:35-44.

Kongoh (Keiji Tamake, Japan)

Manabe S, Morimoto C, Hamano Y, Fujimoto S, Tamaki K. Development and validation of open-source software for DNA mixture interpretation based on a quantitative continuous model. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(11):e0188183.

Admissibility Rulings

Legal Commentary

Some attorneys and scholars have commented on TrueAllele's objective approach, relative to subjective human review of DNA evidence.

• Thompson WC. "Painting the target around the matching profile: the Texas sharpshooter fallacy in forensic DNA interpretation." Law, Probability and Risk. 2009;8(3):257-76.
• Bentley D, Lownds P. "Low Template DNA." Archbold Review. 2011;1(1):6-9.
• Dror IE, Hampikian G. "Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation." Science & Justice. 2011;51(4):204-8.
• Duffy SK. "Challenging the admissibility of DNA evidence." New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) New York Criminal Law Newsletter. 2012;10(2):7-11.
• Harris DA. Failed Evidence: Why Law Enforcement Resists Science. New York: New York University Press, 2012.
• Thompson WC, Mueller LD, Krane DE. "Forensic DNA statistics: still controversial in some cases." The Champion. 2012:12-23.
• Williams KE, Panella MJ. "The continuing legal evolution of forensic DNA." The Pennsylvania Lawyer. 2013(Jan/Feb):34-7.
• Perlin MW, Allan WP, Bracamontes JM, Danser KR, Legler MM. "Reporting exclusionary results on complex DNA evidence, with a response to “Uncertainty in probabilistic genotyping of low template DNA: A case study comparing STRmix™ and TrueAllele®” software." (May 18, 2023). Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4449313.
• Perlin MW. Response letter. August 3, 2023.

Scientific Development

• Perlin MW. Transforming conjunctive match into RETE: a call-graph caching approach. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 1991;1(4):373:408.
• Perlin MW, Lancia G, Ng S-K. Toward fully automated genotyping: genotyping microsatellite markers by deconvolution. Am J Hum Genet. 1995;57(5):1199-210.
• Andrews C, Devlin B, Perlin M, Roeder K. Binning clones by hybridization with complex probes: statistical refinement of an inner product mapping method. Genomics, 1997;41(2):141-154.
• Perlin MW, Szabady B. Linear mixture analysis: a mathematical approach to resolving mixed DNA samples. J Forensic Sci. 2001;46(6):1372-7.
• Kadash K, Kozlowski BE, Biega LA, Duceman BW. Validation study of the TrueAllele® automated data review system. J Forensic Sci. 2004;49(4):1-8.
• Perlin MW. Scientific validation of mixture interpretation methods. Promega's Seventeenth International Symposium on Human Identification, 2006; Nashville, TN.
• Perlin MW. Explaining the likelihood ratio in DNA mixture interpretation. Promega's Twenty First International Symposium on Human Identification, 2010; San Antonio, TX.
• Perlin MW. Inclusion probability for DNA mixtures is a subjective one-sided match statistic unrelated to identification information. Journal of Pathology Informatics, 6(1):59, 2015.
• Perlin MW. Efficient construction of match strength distributions for uncertain multi-locus genotypes. Heliyon, 4(10):e00824, 2018.

Other Papers

Foundation

• Poirier DJ. The growth of Bayesian methods in Statistics and Economics since 1970. Bayesian Analysis. 2006;1(4):969–80.
• Richey M. The evolution of Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. The American Mathematical Monthly. 2010;117(5):383-413.
• MATLAB programming language. MathWorks company overview.

Relevant

• Gill P, Brenner CH, Buckleton JS, Carracedo A, Krawczak M, Mayr WR, Morling N, Prinz M, Schneider PM, Weir BS. DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the interpretation of mixtures. Forensic Sci Int. 2006;160(2-3):90-101.
• Bright JA, Taylor D, Curran JM, Buckleton JS. Developing allelic and stutter peak height models for a continuous method of DNA interpretation. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2013 Feb;7(2):296-304.
• Bright JA, Curran JM, Buckleton JS. Investigation into the performance of different models for predicting stutter. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2013;7(4):422-7.
• Butler JM, Kline MC, Coble MD. NIST interlaboratory studies involving DNA mixtures (MIX05 and MIX13): Variation observed and lessons learned. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2018;37:81-94.
• Greenspoon SA, Schiermeier-Wood L, Jenkins BC. A tale of two PG systems: A comparison of the two most widely used continuous probabilistic genotyping systems in the United States. J Forensic Sci. 2024;69(5):1840-1860.