Version	1.1	/	Date	of	Issue:	2.09.16 /	Issuing	Authority:	Forensic	Science	Standards	Board	(FSSB)

OSAC	RESEARCH	NEEDS	ASSESSMENT	FORM

Title	of	research	need: Develop	STR/SNP	panels	(including	any	necessary	allelic	ladders	and	

databases)	for	current	species	of	forensic	interest.

Keyword(s): STR	panel,	SNP	panel,	allelic	ladder,	standardization, development,	game	species,	

domestic	species,	livestock,	wildlife

Submitting	subcommittee(s): Wildlife	Forensics Date	Approved: 2/3/16

(If	SAC	review	identifies	additional	subcommittees,	add	them	to	the	box	above.)

Background	Information:

1. Description	of	research	need:

Commercially	developed	STR/SNP	kits	do	not	exist	for	wildlife	species.	Wildlife	Forensic	Laboratories,	

therefore,	develop	their	own	STR/SNP	panels,	either	through	original	research	or	by	adopting	primers	

from	the	research	literature.		Laboratories	then	validate	these	panels	in-house	and	construct	associated	

databases	for	population	frequencies.	Because	of	this	lack	of	centralized	support,	each	laboratory	

completes	this	development	of	its	own	panel	of	STRs	and	its	own	database.	Since	allelic	ladders	are	not	

typically	developed	for	these	panels,	data	are	not	transferrable	between	labs.	This	means	that	any	

databases	that	are	developed	can	also	not	be	shared.

While	not	all	wildlife	species	need	standardized	STR/SNP	panels,	many labs	would	benefit	from	

standardization	of	panels	and	development	of	associated	allelic	ladders	for	common	game	species	such	

as	North	American	deer	species,	moose,	and	bear;	species	of		high	international	trade	value	(tigers,	

sturgeon,	elephants);	and	commonly	encountered	domestic	and	livestock	species	(dogs,	cats,	horses,	

cattle).

Research	and	development,	in	this	application,	initially	would	involve	developing	sample	databases	

which	would	then	be	used	to	identify	and	characterize		genetic	markers	following	these	criteria:	

-High	discriminating	power,	usually	greater	than	0.9,	with	observed	heterozygosity	of	greater	than	

70%	(Butler)

-Separate	chromosome	locations	to	ensure	that	closely	linked	loci	are	not	chosen	(Butler)

-Robustness	and	reproducibility	of	results	when	multiplexed	with	other	markers	(Butler)

-Low	stutter	characteristics	(Butler)

-Low	mutation	rates	(Butler)

- Predicted	length	of	alleles	that	fall	in	the	range	of	90-500	bp	with	smaller	sizes	better	suited	for	

analysis	of	degraded	DNA	(200	bp)	(Butler)

-Ability	to	multiplex

Both	existing	markers	and	novel	markers	are	possibly	useful.	Once	the	optimal	marker	panel	has	been	

developed	for	STR	applications,	an	allelic	ladder	must	be	developed	and	made	available	to	the	relevant	

communities.	Development	of	reference	materials	for	these	species	is	also	needed.		Development	of	the	

associated	profile	databases,	either	global	or	regional,	whichever	is	applicable	to	the	species	of	interest	
Version	1.1	/	Date	of	Issue:	2.09.16 /	Issuing	Authority:	Forensic	Science	Standards	Board	(FSSB)

is	also	necessary.		All	information	must	be	made	publically	available	for	the	relevant	community.	All	

panels	must	be	developed	with	the	intention	of	having	a	full	validation	completed	that	is	compliant	

with	OSAC	Validation	Standards.

2. Key	bibliographic	references	relating	to	this	research	need:

Butler,	J.M.	2010 Fundamentals	of	Forensic	DNA	Typing.	Elsevier	Academic	Press,	San	Diego,	520	pages

Harper	Cindy	K,	Vermeulen GJ,	Clarke	AB,	de	Wet	JI,	Guthrie	AJ.	2013.	Extraction	of	nuclear	DNA	from	

rhinoceros	horn	and	characterization	of	DNA	profiling	systems	for	white	(Ceratotherium	simum)	

and	black	(Diceros	bicornis)	rhinoceros.	FSI	Genetics	7(4):428-433.

Jobin RM,	Patterson	D,	Zhang	Y.	2008	DNA	typing	in	populations	of	mule	deer	for	forensic	use	in	the	

Province	of	Alberta.	Forensic	Sci	Int	Genet	2(3):190-7.	

Rob	Ogden,	Nick	Dawnay,	Ross	McEwing.	2009.	Wildlife	DNA	forensics—bridging	the	gap	between	

conservation genetics	and	law	enforcement.	Endangered	Species	Research	9(3):179-195.

Randy	W.	DeYoung,	Stephen	Demarais,	Rodney	L.	Honeycutt,	Robert	A.	Gonzales,	Kenneth	L.	Gee	and	

Joel	D.	Anderson.	Wildlife	Society	Bulletin.	31(1):220-232.

3a. In	what	ways	would	the	research	results	improve	current	laboratory	capabilities?

Development	and	optimization	of	standardized	panels,	ladders,	and	databases	would	greatly	reduce	

duplication	of	effort	between	laboratories	and	ensure	continuity.	Once	the	effort	has	been	made,	the	

databases	cannot	be	shared	and	communication	between	laboratories	is	not	possible.	It	would	also	

improve	quality	by	ensuring	that	each	lab	characterizes	a	minimum	number	of	informative	loci	and	

uses	similar	terminology.	Additionally,	it	would	reveal	landscape-wide	population	genetic	structure	

that	may	not	be	apparent	within	only	a	single	laboratory’s	regional-specific	database.

3b. In	what	ways	would	the	research	results	improve	understanding	of	the	scientific	basis	for	the	

subcommittee(s)?

Database	sharing	will	improve	our	understanding	of	population	structure	within	target	species	across	

a	larger	geographic	range.	Standardization	ensures	that	similar	methods	and	terminology	is	used	

between	laboratories.

3c.		In	what	ways	would	the	research	results improve	services	to	the	criminal	justice	system?

Currently,	most	consumers	must	have	testing	done	at	whichever	laboratory	has	the	appropriate	

database	for	the	needed	species	and	population.	If	panels	were	standardized,	databases	could	be	built	

jointly	and	shared,	and	multiple	labs	would	be	able	to	provide	services	to	consumers.		The	cost	for	

development	of	panels	and	databases	would	be	decreased.	Additionally,	standardized	panels	would	

ensure	a	minimum	number	of	informative	loci	are	used.

4.		Status	assessment	(I,	II,	III,	or	IV): I Major gap	in	

current	

knowledge

Minor	gap	in	

current	

knowledge

No	or	limited

current	research	

is	being	conducted

I III
Version	1.1	/	Date	of	Issue:	2.09.16 /	Issuing	Authority:	Forensic	Science	Standards	Board	(FSSB)

Existing current	

research	is	being	

conducted

II IV

This	research	need	has	been	identified	by	one	or	more	subcommittees	of	OSAC	and	is	being	provided	as	an	

informational	resource	to	the	community.

Approvals:

Subcommittee Approval	date: 2/3/16

(Approval	is	by	majority	vote	of	subcommittee.	Once	approved,	forward	to	SAC.)

SAC

1.		Does	the	SAC	agree	with	the	research	need? Yes x No

2.		Does	the	SAC	agree	with	the	status	assessment? Yes x No

If	no,	what	is	the	status	assessment	of	the	SAC:

Approval	date: 3/16/16

(Approval	is	by	majority	vote	of	SAC.		Once	approved,	forward	to	NIST	for	posting.)