Editing DNA profiling (section)

==DNA databases==
{{Main|National DNA database}}
An early application of a [[DNA database]] was the compilation of a Mitochondrial DNA Concordance,<ref>{{cite web| vauthors = Miller K |title=Mitochondrial DNA Concordance |publisher=University of Cambridge – Biological Anthropology
|url=http://www.bioanth.cam.ac.uk/mtDNA/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030122010149/http://www.bioanth.cam.ac.uk/mtDNA/|url-status=dead|archive-date=22 January 2003}}</ref> prepared by Kevin W. P. Miller and John L. Dawson at the [[University of Cambridge]] from 1996 to 1999<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Miller KW, Dawson JL, Hagelberg E | title = A concordance of nucleotide substitutions in the first and second hypervariable segments of the human mtDNA control region | journal = International Journal of Legal Medicine | volume = 109 | issue = 3 | pages = 107–113 | year = 1996 | pmid = 8956982 | doi = 10.1007/bf01369668 | s2cid = 19215033 }}</ref> from data collected as part of Miller's PhD thesis. There are now several [[DNA database]]s in existence around the world. Some are private, but most of the largest databases are government-controlled. The [[United States]] maintains the largest [[DNA database]], with the [[Combined DNA Index System]] (CODIS) holding over 13 million records as of May 2018.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.fbi.gov/services/laboratory/biometric-analysis/codis/ndis-statistics |title=CODIS&nbsp;– National DNA Index System |publisher=Fbi.gov |access-date=3 April 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100306181537/http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/codis/national.htm |archive-date=6 March 2010 }}</ref> The [[United Kingdom]] maintains the [[United Kingdom National DNA Database|National DNA Database]] (NDNAD), which is of similar size, despite the UK's smaller population. The size of this database, and its rate of growth, are giving concern to [[civil liberties]] groups in the UK, where police have wide-ranging powers to take samples and retain them even in the event of acquittal.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Identification_by_body_samples_and_impressions#Section_82:_Restrictions_on_use_and_destruction_of_fingerprints_and_samples |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070223205051/http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Identification_by_body_samples_and_impressions#Section_82:_Restrictions_on_use_and_destruction_of_fingerprints_and_samples |url-status=dead |archive-date=23 February 2007 |title=Restrictions on use and destruction of fingerprints and samples |publisher=Wikicrimeline.co.uk |date=1 September 2009 |access-date=3 April 2010 }}</ref> The Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition partially addressed these concerns with part 1 of the [[Protection of Freedoms Act 2012]], under which DNA samples must be deleted if suspects are acquitted or not charged, except in relation to certain (mostly serious or sexual) offenses. Public discourse around the introduction of advanced forensic techniques (such as genetic genealogy using public genealogy databases and DNA phenotyping approaches) has been limited, disjointed, unfocused, and raises issues of privacy and consent that may warrant the establishment of additional legal protections.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Curtis C, Hereward J, Mangelsdorf M, Hussey K, Devereux J | title = Protecting trust in medical genetics in the new era of forensics | journal = Genetics in Medicine | volume = 21 | issue = 7 | pages = 1483–1485 | date = July 2019 | pmid = 30559376 | pmc = 6752261 | doi = 10.1038/s41436-018-0396-7 | url = https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:f122f7b/Protectingtrust.pdf | access-date = 22 September 2019 | url-status = live | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20211025192230/https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/data/UQ_f122f7b/Protectingtrust.pdf?Expires=1635189837&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJKNBJ4MJBJNC6NLQ&Signature=GQtTqtxa6pe2VAlhtrpF8jxtIHbKWriP1BWt43vCALL3t25-YZ7~L0VGDJQNVtP0gfpVYrlyKF85MMKPN9IHnTCMN3F3z905iE~ubuMgHeTJ6AmpvHIFzsvFuGdBQ0l~jplwWt7A~88m~PXHeSimHPWQ-e1hc4FRvsRWxzYq4cNwK4ojST3ChZsl5~p1BYHMNCHm8wflr2Tf0PQpl-B-vZ5uLSC~~IxsOqxmjNpprlsNTO8vbLoEVsNKyDed-zAQ-CZ2fP8SPMxL4IVm0Hgw~b4wM8Rcc-td54BT3ZDP-sRBaMVuqZbyPrAvZcskyOi4mkVZ7objEADPADeuH0-7Og__ | archive-date = 25 October 2021 }}</ref>

The [[USA PATRIOT Act|U.S. Patriot Act]] of the United States provides a means for the U.S. government to get DNA samples from suspected terrorists. DNA information from crimes is collected and deposited into the [[Combined DNA Index System|CODIS]] database, which is maintained by the [[FBI]]. CODIS enables law enforcement officials to test DNA samples from crimes for matches within the database, providing a means of finding specific biological profiles associated with collected DNA evidence.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-R-0411.htm|title=DNA Testing Provisions in Patriot Act| vauthors = Price-Livingston S |date=5 June 2003|access-date=18 January 2018|publisher=[[Connecticut General Assembly]]|archive-date=29 July 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200729223848/https://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-R-0411.htm|url-status=live}}</ref>

When a match is made from a national DNA databank to link a crime scene to an offender having provided a DNA sample to a database, that link is often referred to as a ''cold hit''. A cold hit is of value in referring the police agency to a specific suspect but is of less evidential value than a DNA match made from outside the DNA Databank.<ref>{{Cite book|title=DNA: A Practical Guide| vauthors = Goos L, Rose JD |url=https://store.thomsonreuters.ca/product-detail/dna-a-practical-guide-print-proview-online/|publisher=[[Carswell Publications]]|location=Toronto|access-date=5 June 2019|archive-date=5 June 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190605204620/https://store.thomsonreuters.ca/product-detail/dna-a-practical-guide-print-proview-online/|url-status=live}}</ref>

FBI agents cannot legally store DNA of a person not convicted of a crime. DNA collected from a suspect not later convicted must be disposed of and not entered into the database. In 1998, a man residing in the UK was arrested on accusation of burglary. His DNA was taken and tested, and he was later released. Nine months later, this man's DNA was accidentally and illegally entered in the DNA database. New DNA is automatically compared to the DNA found at cold cases and, in this case, this man was found to be a match to DNA found at a rape and assault case one year earlier. The government then prosecuted him for these crimes. During the trial the DNA match was requested to be removed from the evidence because it had been illegally entered into the database. The request was carried out.<ref name="Cole-2007">{{cite web | url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/double-helix-jeopardy | title=Double Helix Jeopardy | work=[[IEEE Spectrum]] | date=1 August 2007 | access-date=6 June 2019 | vauthors = Cole SA | archive-date=29 September 2019 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190929200541/https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/double-helix-jeopardy | url-status=live }}</ref>
The DNA of the perpetrator, collected from victims of rape, can be stored for years until a match is found. In 2014, to address this problem, Congress extended a bill that helps states deal with "a backlog" of evidence.<ref>{{cite news |title=Congress OKs bill to cut rape evidence backlog |url=http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CONGRESS_RAPE_BACKLOG_BILL?SITE=NHCON&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-09-18-18-43-47 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200730052108/http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CONGRESS_RAPE_BACKLOG_BILL?SITE=NHCON&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-09-18-18-43-47 |url-status=dead |archive-date=30 July 2020 |agency=Associated Press |access-date=18 September 2014 }}</ref>

'''<big>DNA profiling databases in Plants:</big>'''

'''<big>PIDS:</big>'''

PIDS(Plant international DNA-fingerprinting system) is an open source web server and free software based plant international DNA fingerprinting system.

It manages huge amount of microsatellite DNA fingerprint data, performs genetic studies, and automates collection, storage and maintenance while decreasing human error and increasing efficiency.

The system may be tailored to specific laboratory needs, making it a valuable tool for plant breeders, forensic science, and human fingerprint recognition.

It keeps track of experiments, standardizes data and promotes inter-database communication.

It also helps with the regulation of variety quality, the preservation of variety rights and the use of molecular markers in breeding by providing location statistics, merging, comparison and genetic analysis function.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Jiang |first1=Bin |last2=Zhao |first2=Yikun |last3=Yi |first3=Hongmei |last4=Huo |first4=Yongxue |last5=Wu |first5=Haotian |last6=Ren |first6=Jie |last7=Ge |first7=Jianrong |last8=Zhao |first8=Jiuran |last9=Wang |first9=Fengge |date=2020-03-30 |title=PIDS: A User-Friendly Plant DNA Fingerprint Database Management System |journal=Genes |volume=11 |issue=4 |pages=373 |doi=10.3390/genes11040373 |issn=2073-4425 |pmc=7230844 |pmid=32235513 |doi-access=free }}</ref>