Inferring ancestral origin using a single multiplex assay of ancestry-informative marker SNPs

Tests that infer the ancestral origin of a DNA sample have considerable potential in the development of forensic tools that can help to guide crime investigation. We have developed a single-tube 34-plex SNP assay for the assignment of ancestral origin by choosing ancestry-informative markers (AIMs) exhibiting highly contrasting allele frequency distributions between the three major population-groups. To predict ancestral origin from the profiles obtained, a classification algorithm was developed based on maximum likelihood. Sampling of two populations each from African, European and East Asian groups provided training sets for the algorithm and this was tested using the CEPH Human Genome Diversity Panel. We detected negligible theoretical and practical error for assignments to one of the three groups analyzed with consistently high classification probabilities, even when using reduced subsets of SNPs. This study shows that by choosing SNPs exhibiting marked allele frequency differences between population-groups a practical forensic test for assigning the most likely ancestry can be achieved from a single multiplexed assay.     

No room for Asia-Pacifists?

When this Journal decided to run a special issue on IP in theAsia-Pacific region, it was following the conventional wisdomof the profession and the marketplace. For many years, the conceptof the Asia-Pacific sold conferences and printed publications.And it was on this assumption that JIPLP based its decisionto give over its March issue for coverage of that zone. However,there comes a point in the life of     

Making the innocent pay

Even those of us who enter the legal profession for reasonsof personal advancement or greed can spot an injustice whenwe see it. As students and raw recruits to the profession, weshare with our clients the notion that, in any cause, one sideis ‘right’ and the other ‘wrong’. Toallow the party in the wrong to vanquish the party in the rightwould be unjust, notwithstanding the fact that the law permitsit. In time our perspective mellows: we learn to appreciatethat     

When evaluators disagree: Perplexities and perspectives

It is often held that one function served by evaluation in the fields of education and social policy generally is to assist the administrator in the making of rational decisions. If, under these circumstances, several evaluators come to different conclusions about a research proposal or a pilot social program, on what basis can the administrator make his decision? He can hardly be expected to resolve any technical dispute between the experts who are his advisors. After discussing the various functions of the evaluation process, and analyzing some of the factors that may lead to such lack of consensus amongst experts, the paper recommends that if the administrator is concerned solely with making a rationally defensible decision, then he should select his evaluating panel so that all members share the same theoretical orientation.     

IP litigation, the new money-spinner

It is a truism that intellectual property litigation costs alot of money. It can be ruinously expensive even for the victor,never mind the beaten, bloodied loser. Much effort has beendirected at reducing the cost of combat in court: streamliningthe trial process, rocket dockets, better case management, toname a few, have produced some relief for costly litigationbut no cure. However, since the reward for the winner is sooften the opportunity of either enforcing a     

Delicate balance or creative conflict?

In this issue Andrés Guadamuz explains the recent troubledhistory of the attempts that have been made to ensure the harmoniousoperation of Europe's software patent laws, and of the sad fateof those attempts. There is something paradoxical about thefact that the attempts at reform were scotched by two opposingcamps consisting of those who stood to gain most from thosereforms: on the one side those who want strong software patentsand on the other those who want no patents at all. At     

Demonstrating 'use' of an earlier registered mark in CTM opposition proceedings

An earlier registered trade mark may serve to oppose a laterapplication to register a Community trade mark, notwithstandingthat the earlier mark is not used in the form in which it isregistered, so long as the actual use had not destroyed thedistinctive character of the earlier mark.