Contents of this page –
1-1 Validation of GeneScan import
1-2 Validation of Immigration
2-1 Acceptance of digitizer
3-1 Y2K Compliance
See also:
Table of validation studies (by CLB Immunology)
Summary of validation/accreditation questionnaire responses (by CLB)
Y2K affadavit (by CHB)

Validation/accreditation Studies

The validation/accreditation studies and user-survey questionnaires referenced are thanks to Peter van Eede, CLB Dept. of Immunology, Amsterdam Red Cross

1-1 Validation of ABI GeneScan file import in DNA•VIEW

Introduction

From DNA•VIEW version 21 there is an option to import ABI GeneScan files. This option is validated in version 21.15 because in this version the stutter filter is added. The ABI results of the multiplex systems CTTv and FFFL (Promega) are used. The GeneScan analysis version in use is 2.1

Protocol

The frequencies used in Pater will be imported in DNA•VIEW and checked. The PCR parameters will be imported according to the manual. After importing the GeneScan files from eight different sample runs in DNA•VIEW. the results of the calculated PI value in DNA•VIEW will be compared with the results of the same samples from the PI calculation in Pater.

Criteria

Except for some slight round off causes there must be no differences between the DNA•VIEW and Pater results.

Results

In the first results differences were seen between DNA•VIEW and Pater. These differences were caused by the setting of the option Count observed allele how many times in database. The allele TH01 9.3 caused another problem. Sometimes there was confusion in DNA•VIEW between TH01 9.3 and 10. Setting the option Count observed allele how many times in database = 0 and retyping, every TH01 9.3 allele in the membrane using the option casework, type in a read, with the size of the fragment, no differences between the Pater and DNA•VIEW results were observed.

remark: In DNA•VIEW there is no automatic calculation using race mixtures which happens to be less convenient.

Conclusion

No differences between the DNA•VIEW and Pater were found, therefore the feature Importing GeneScan files can be implemented in paternity casework.

1-2 Validation of the option DNA•VIEW Immigration

Introduction

From DNA•VIEW version 21 Immigration is available. Immigration performs automatically for each locus the calculations in a kinship situation. This option is validated in DNA•VIEW version 21.15.

Protocol

Twenty known trios from routine casework will be tested. Ten exclusions and ten proven cases. Five more complex kinship cases will be analyzed concerning the calculated PI value, the choice of the paternal fragment and the used formulas.

Criteria

The results of the paternity index calculation using the feature Immigration and with the standard casework, kinship may only differ for some slight round off causes.

Results

Testing the twenty trios no differences between the results were observed. Also in the more complex kinship cases there was no matter of dispute.

Conclusion

No differences or problems were found. Therefore the feature Immigration can be used in routine kinship diagnostics.

2-1 Acceptation test Numonics A30BL digitizer tablet

Introduction

A new hardware device as a new digitizer tablet has to be validated before it can be implemented in routine paternity testing.

Protocol

The DNA•VIEW settings for this tablet will be performed according to the manual, after which the communication must be checked. Ten known X-ray films from routine RFLP testing will be imported in DNA•VIEW using the A30BL digitizer tablet. Two different readers perform these reads. The results will be compared with the results form earlier readings of the same X-ray films.

Criteria

Between the readings of the same gel the differences may not be greater then 0,8% .

No differences between the readers greater then 0.8% may occur.

Results

In the results a distinction is made between the standards and the data bands. The results of the readings with the A30BL tablet compared with the known results of the same X-ray films no differences larger then 0,8% were observed. Between the two readers no mutual differences larger then 0,8% were seen.

Conclusion

The results of the acceptation test answer the predefined criteria. Therefore the new digitizer tablet will be implemented in routine casework.

3-1 Y2K compliance of DNA•VIEW and Pater

Introduction

According to the DNA•VIEW supplier, from the DNA•VIEW version 22 and Pater version 12 the DNA•VIEW program is Y2K convenient. However according to general guidelines from the European Council of Accreditation the Y2K compliance must be tested.

Protocol

The testing is performed in a stand-alone environment. Using the DNA•VIEW version 22.08 and the Pater version 12.02 and the latest data. The continuity of the running DNA•VIEW program must be tested during the changeover from 31-12-1999 23.59 hr to 01-01-2000 00.01 hr. The test computer must be set in a year 2000 environment. Twenty old (1999) cases will be retrieved and calculated. The results will be compared with the old calculations (1999). To update databases, frequencies have to be counted up to 9999-*****. In the feature quality controls membranes named with the four-digit year code must be recognized. The feature reread (rework of old material) will be tested by reread four old (1999) reads and compared with the old reads.

Criteria

During the conversion to the year 2000 and beyond, problems running the DNA•VIEW program or discrepancies with earlier results are not allowed.

Results

Running DNA•VIEW no problems occurred during the conversion to the year 2000. There were no differences between the results from twenty old (1999) cases in a 2000 environment and a 1999 environment.

Testing the populations, the database feature caused an error report. The error was not due to the 2000 environment.

It seems according to the supplier to be a known problem in the update DNA•VIEW version 22.09. the problem is fixed. The populations database feature was retested using the DNA•VIEW version 22.09. The frequencies can be updated to 9999-*****.

In the feature quality controls the membranes named with the four-digit year codes can be included.

Four membranes from 1999 were reread in the year 2000 environment. Comparing the results, no differences were seen.

To avoid creating two different versions from one number e.g. 98-12345 and 1998-12345 a dialogue box appears. This feature was tested twenty times and every time the warning appeared.

Conclusion

According to the results and the Y2K compliance of DNA•VIEW and Pater declaration of the supplier, the program seems to be millennium convenient for DNA•VIEW version 22.09 and Pater version 12.02.