Data review was performed by at least three distinct scientists at two different laboratories: the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory (AFDIL); and the Institute of Legal Medicine, Innsbruck Medical University (GMI), curator of the European DNA Profiling Group mtDNA population (EMPOP) database (www.empop.org) [23]. In detail, the review

steps were as follows. Initial assembly, trimming and review of the raw sequence data for each sample was performed in Sequencher version 4.8 or 5.0 (Gene Codes Corporation, Ann Arbor, MI). Sequences were aligned to the revised Cambridge Reference Sequence (rCRS; [32] and [33]) following phylogenetic alignment rules [25], [26] and [34]. In cases of length heteroplasmy (LHP), a single dominant variant was identified (as per recommendations for mtDNA data interpretation [26] and [34]). With regard to point heteroplasmy

(PHP), an mtGenome position selleck kinase inhibitor was deemed heteroplasmic only if specific criteria were met upon visual review of the raw sequence data: (1) If the minor sequence variant was readily visible (i.e., a distinct peak of normal morphology with white space beneath it could be seen in the trace data without changing the chromatogram view in Sequencher to examine the Z-VAD-FMK mouse signal closer to the baseline) in all of the sequences covering the position, and those sequences were generated using both forward and reverse primers, a PHP was called. When heteroplasmy was suspected but not confirmed according to the Cediranib (AZD2171) above criteria, additional sequence data were generated for the sample/region

to clarify the presence or absence of heteroplasmy. Once each sample haplotype was complete (i.e., every mtGenome position had at least two strands of high-resolution sequence coverage), a list of differences from the rCRS was prepared manually, and a variance report was electronically exported from Sequencher. Each mtGenome haplotype contig generated during the primary analysis of the raw data was reviewed on a position-by-position basis by a second scientist. A list of differences from the rCRS was generated manually and compared to the list generated at the primary analysis stage, and any discrepancies were resolved to the satisfaction of both reviewers. A variance report was again exported from Sequencher, and compared to the manually-prepared lists of differences from the rCRS to ensure full agreement across all paper and electronic records. In addition, sequences present in the final sample contig were visually examined to confirm that all sequences had the same sample identifier (i.e., that no sequences from a different sample were mistakenly included). The Sequencher variance reports exported at the secondary analysis stage were electronically imported into the custom software Laboratory Information Systems Applications (LISA; Future Technologies Inc., Fairfax VA).