Mitochondrial DNA error prophylaxis: assessing the causes of errors in the GEP’02–03 proficiency testing trial Antonio Salas, Lourdes Prieto, Marta Montesino, Cristina Albarrán, Eduardo Arroyo, Miguel R. Paredes-Herrera, Ana Ma Di Lonardo, Christian Doutremepuich, Isabel Fernández-Fernández, Alberto González de la Vega, Cı́ntia Alves, Carlos M. López, Manolo López- Soto, José A. Lorente, Antònia Picornell, Rosa M. Espinheira, Alexis Hernández, Ana Ma Palacio, Marta Espinoza, Juan J. Yunis, Anna Pérez-Lezaun, José J. Pestano, Juan Carlos Carril, Daniel Corach, Ma Conceiçao Vide, V. Álvarez-Iglesias, M.F. Pinheiro, Martı́n R. Whittle, Antonio Brehm, Josefina Gómez Forensic Science International Volume 148, Issue 2, Pages 191-198 (March 2005) DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2004.06.008
Fig. 1 Diagram showing the genetic relationships between the samples analyzed in 2002–2003 GEP-ISFG Collaborative Exercise. An X indicates a donor not maternally related to M1, M2, M3, M4/M6. Forensic Science International 2005 148, 191-198DOI: (10.1016/j.forsciint.2004.06.008)
Fig. 2 Different segments of the electrophoregrams corresponding to the mixture sample M5. Forensic Science International 2005 148, 191-198DOI: (10.1016/j.forsciint.2004.06.008)