These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

144 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28950155)

  • 1. Production of high-fidelity electropherograms results in improved and consistent DNA interpretation: Standardizing the forensic validation process.
    Peters KC; Swaminathan H; Sheehan J; Duffy KR; Lun DS; Grgicak CM
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2017 Nov; 31():160-170. PubMed ID: 28950155
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Towards developing forensically relevant single-cell pipelines by incorporating direct-to-PCR extraction: compatibility, signal quality, and allele detection.
    Sheth N; Swaminathan H; Gonzalez AJ; Duffy KR; Grgicak CM
    Int J Legal Med; 2021 May; 135(3):727-738. PubMed ID: 33484330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A large-scale validation of NOCIt's a posteriori probability of the number of contributors and its integration into forensic interpretation pipelines.
    Grgicak CM; Karkar S; Yearwood-Garcia X; Alfonse LE; Duffy KR; Lun DS
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2020 Jul; 47():102296. PubMed ID: 32339916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Exploring STR signal in the single- and multicopy number regimes: Deductions from an in silico model of the entire DNA laboratory process.
    Duffy KR; Gurram N; Peters KC; Wellner G; Grgicak CM
    Electrophoresis; 2017 Mar; 38(6):855-868. PubMed ID: 27981603
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. CEESIt: A computational tool for the interpretation of STR mixtures.
    Swaminathan H; Garg A; Grgicak CM; Medard M; Lun DS
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2016 May; 22():149-160. PubMed ID: 26946255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Developmental validation of the MiSeq FGx Forensic Genomics System for Targeted Next Generation Sequencing in Forensic DNA Casework and Database Laboratories.
    Jäger AC; Alvarez ML; Davis CP; Guzmán E; Han Y; Way L; Walichiewicz P; Silva D; Pham N; Caves G; Bruand J; Schlesinger F; Pond SJK; Varlaro J; Stephens KM; Holt CL
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2017 May; 28():52-70. PubMed ID: 28171784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Internal validation of STRmix™ for the interpretation of single source and mixed DNA profiles.
    Moretti TR; Just RS; Kehl SC; Willis LE; Buckleton JS; Bright JA; Taylor DA; Onorato AJ
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2017 Jul; 29():126-144. PubMed ID: 28504203
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. TrueAllele(®) Genotype Identification on DNA Mixtures Containing up to Five Unknown Contributors.
    Perlin MW; Hornyak JM; Sugimoto G; Miller KW
    J Forensic Sci; 2015 Jul; 60(4):857-68. PubMed ID: 26189920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Evidentiary evaluation of single cells renders highly informative forensic comparisons across multifarious admixtures.
    Duffy KR; Lun DS; Mulcahy MM; O'Donnell L; Sheth N; Grgicak CM
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2023 May; 64():102852. PubMed ID: 36934551
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Run-specific limits of detection and quantitation for STR-based DNA testing.
    Gilder JR; Doom TE; Inman K; Krane DE
    J Forensic Sci; 2007 Jan; 52(1):97-101. PubMed ID: 17209918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Four model variants within a continuous forensic DNA mixture interpretation framework: Effects on evidential inference and reporting.
    Swaminathan H; Qureshi MO; Grgicak CM; Duffy K; Lun DS
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(11):e0207599. PubMed ID: 30458020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Evaluation of the Illumina(®) Beta Version ForenSeq™ DNA Signature Prep Kit for use in genetic profiling.
    Churchill JD; Schmedes SE; King JL; Budowle B
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2016 Jan; 20():20-29. PubMed ID: 26433485
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Forensic validation of the SNPforID 52-plex assay.
    Musgrave-Brown E; Ballard D; Balogh K; Bender K; Berger B; Bogus M; Børsting C; Brion M; Fondevila M; Harrison C; Oguzturun C; Parson W; Phillips C; Proff C; Ramos-Luis E; Sanchez JJ; Sánchez Diz P; Sobrino Rey B; Stradmann-Bellinghausen B; Thacker C; Carracedo A; Morling N; Scheithauer R; Schneider PM; Syndercombe Court D
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2007 Jun; 1(2):186-90. PubMed ID: 19083753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Application of random match probability calculations to mixed STR profiles.
    Bille T; Bright JA; Buckleton J
    J Forensic Sci; 2013 Mar; 58(2):474-85. PubMed ID: 23425220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. DNA mixture genotyping by probabilistic computer interpretation of binomially-sampled laser captured cell populations: combining quantitative data for greater identification information.
    Ballantyne J; Hanson EK; Perlin MW
    Sci Justice; 2013 Jun; 53(2):103-14. PubMed ID: 23601717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Inferring the Number of Contributors to Complex DNA Mixtures Using Three Methods: Exploring the Limits of Low-Template DNA Interpretation.
    Alfonse LE; Tejada G; Swaminathan H; Lun DS; Grgicak CM
    J Forensic Sci; 2017 Mar; 62(2):308-316. PubMed ID: 27907229
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Probabilistic peak detection in CE-LIF for STR DNA typing.
    Woldegebriel M; van Asten A; Kloosterman A; Vivó-Truyols G
    Electrophoresis; 2017 Jul; 38(13-14):1713-1723. PubMed ID: 28370326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Single-cell investigative genetics: Single-cell data produces genotype distributions concentrated at the true genotype across all mixture complexities.
    Grgicak CM; Bhembe Q; Slooten K; Sheth NC; Duffy KR; Lun DS
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2024 Mar; 69():103000. PubMed ID: 38199167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Development and validation of open-source software for DNA mixture interpretation based on a quantitative continuous model.
    Manabe S; Morimoto C; Hamano Y; Fujimoto S; Tamaki K
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(11):e0188183. PubMed ID: 29149210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Interpreting forensic DNA profiling evidence without specifying the number of contributors.
    Taylor D; Bright JA; Buckleton J
    Forensic Sci Int Genet; 2014 Nov; 13():269-80. PubMed ID: 25261845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.