. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Feb 6.

Published in final edited form as: Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2021 Dec 28;57:102655. doi: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2021.102655

Table 3.

Revisions to previously published Y-STR length-based data.

Marker	Sample	Original^a	Revised
DYS385 a/b	C12A	19	12,19
DYS385 a/b	C26A	16	15,16
DYS385 a/b	C34A	12	12,20
DYS385 a/b	C41A	10	10,19
DYS385 a/b	C42A	12	12,18
DYS385 a/b	C51H	15	12,15
DYS448	C84A	16	del
Marker	Sample	Original^b	Revised

DYS392	OT07280	11,12	11
DYS448	ZT80358	18.4	18.5
DYS481	C96H	24	25
DYS481	C97H	23	24
DYS481	C98A	26	27
DYS481	MT94869	22,23	22
DYS481	MT97196	22,23	22
DYS481	WT51355	22,23	22
Marker	Sample	Original^c	Revised

DYF387S1	WA29594	36,38	35,38
DYF387S1	WT51556	38	38,39
DYS449	JT51467	35.2	36
DYS518	TT50700	42.1	42
DYS570	GT37913	16	19
DYS627	AF78B/C78B	17.1	17.2
DYS627	MT95104	27	24
DYS570	n = 629^*	various	various
Marker	Sample	Original^d	Revised

DYS505	n = 190^**	various	various
DYS522	n = 190^**	various	various

Decker, 2008 using YF [30].

Coble, 2013 using PPY23 [3].

Ballantyne, 2014 using RM Y-STRs [2].

Butler, 2006 using in-house multiplex [13].

samples affected by inconsistency in nomenclature shift.

^**

samples affected by misidentification.