126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20457035)
1. Validation and development of interpretation guidelines for low copy number (LCN) DNA profiling in New Zealand using the AmpFlSTR SGM Plus multiplex.
Petricevic S; Whitaker J; Buckleton J; Vintiner S; Patel J; Simon P; Ferraby H; Hermiz W; Russell A
Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2010 Oct; 4(5):305-10. PubMed ID: 20457035
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. [Low template DNA profiling and its application in forensic science].
Ma Y; Kuang JZ; Hou YP
Fa Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2010 Apr; 26(2):132-6. PubMed ID: 20653141
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Direct comparison of post-28-cycle PCR purification and modified capillary electrophoresis methods with the 34-cycle "low copy number" (LCN) method for analysis of trace forensic DNA samples.
Forster L; Thomson J; Kutranov S
Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2008 Sep; 2(4):318-28. PubMed ID: 19083842
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Efficacy and limits of genotyping low copy number (LCN) DNA samples by multiplex PCR of STR loci.
Kloosterman AD; Kersbergen P
J Soc Biol; 2003; 197(4):351-9. PubMed ID: 15005516
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Reduced reaction volumes and increased Taq DNA polymerase concentration improve STR profiling outcomes from a real-world low template DNA source: telogen hairs.
McNevin D; Edson J; Robertson J; Austin JJ
Forensic Sci Med Pathol; 2015 Sep; 11(3):326-38. PubMed ID: 25999132
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Simplified low-copy-number DNA analysis by post-PCR purification.
Smith PJ; Ballantyne J
J Forensic Sci; 2007 Jul; 52(4):820-9. PubMed ID: 17553095
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. An investigation of the robustness of the consensus method of interpreting low-template DNA profiles.
Cowen S; Debenham P; Dixon A; Kutranov S; Thomson J; Way K
Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2011 Nov; 5(5):400-6. PubMed ID: 20952266
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Developmental validation of the PowerPlex® ESX 16 and PowerPlex® ESX 17 Systems.
Tucker VC; Hopwood AJ; Sprecher CJ; McLaren RS; Rabbach DR; Ensenberger MG; Thompson JM; Storts DR
Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2012 Jan; 6(1):124-31. PubMed ID: 21466982
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Validation of a 21-locus autosomal SNP multiplex for forensic identification purposes.
Dixon LA; Murray CM; Archer EJ; Dobbins AE; Koumi P; Gill P
Forensic Sci Int; 2005 Nov; 154(1):62-77. PubMed ID: 16182950
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Analysis and interpretation of mixed profiles generated by 34 cycle SGM Plus(®) amplification.
Wetton JH; Lee-Edghill J; Archer E; Tucker VC; Hopwood AJ; Whitaker J; Tully G
Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2011 Nov; 5(5):376-80. PubMed ID: 20728420
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A comparison of the characteristics of profiles produced with the AMPFlSTR SGM Plus multiplex system for both standard and low copy number (LCN) STR DNA analysis.
Whitaker JP; Cotton EA; Gill P
Forensic Sci Int; 2001 Dec; 123(2-3):215-23. PubMed ID: 11728750
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Development and validation of the AmpFlSTR MiniFiler PCR Amplification Kit: a MiniSTR multiplex for the analysis of degraded and/or PCR inhibited DNA.
Mulero JJ; Chang CW; Lagacé RE; Wang DY; Bas JL; McMahon TP; Hennessy LK
J Forensic Sci; 2008 Jul; 53(4):838-52. PubMed ID: 18540972
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Extended PCR conditions to reduce drop-out frequencies in low template STR typing including unequal mixtures.
Weiler NE; Matai AS; Sijen T
Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2012 Jan; 6(1):102-7. PubMed ID: 21454145
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Developmental validation of the PowerPlex(®) ESI 16 and PowerPlex(®) ESI 17 Systems: STR multiplexes for the new European standard.
Tucker VC; Hopwood AJ; Sprecher CJ; McLaren RS; Rabbach DR; Ensenberger MG; Thompson JM; Storts DR
Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2011 Nov; 5(5):436-48. PubMed ID: 21071297
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of two whole genome amplification methods for STR genotyping of LCN and degraded DNA samples.
Ballantyne KN; van Oorschot RA; Mitchell RJ
Forensic Sci Int; 2007 Feb; 166(1):35-41. PubMed ID: 16687226
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Maximizing DNA profiling success from sub-optimal quantities of DNA: a staged approach.
Roeder AD; Elsmore P; Greenhalgh M; McDonald A
Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2009 Mar; 3(2):128-37. PubMed ID: 19215883
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Validation of short tandem repeats (STRs) for forensic usage: performance testing of fluorescent multiplex STR systems and analysis of authentic and simulated forensic samples.
Moretti TR; Baumstark AL; Defenbaugh DA; Keys KM; Smerick JB; Budowle B
J Forensic Sci; 2001 May; 46(3):647-60. PubMed ID: 11373004
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Forensic genetic SNP typing of low-template DNA and highly degraded DNA from crime case samples.
Børsting C; Mogensen HS; Morling N
Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2013 May; 7(3):345-52. PubMed ID: 23523365
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Generating DNA profiles from immunochromatographic cards using LCN methodology.
Ho TT; Roy R
Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2011 Jun; 5(3):210-5. PubMed ID: 20457072
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Interpretation guidelines for multilocus STR forensic profiles from low template DNA samples.
Budimlija ZM; Caragine TA
Methods Mol Biol; 2012; 830():199-211. PubMed ID: 22139662
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
