Shaler R C
J Forensic Sci. 1982 Jan;27(1):231-5.
Two cases in which bloodstains and seminal stain evidence were important were subjected to the identification of Gm antigenic determinants. In the first case, the identification of the seminal stain showed the absence of Gm 1 and 12 determinants and the presence of Gm 4. The interpretation of these results would on the surface suggest that the seminal evidence came from one of two suspects. However, since the absence of Gm 12, which occurs on the immunoglobulin G (IgG) 3 subclass, was not confirmed by the demonstration of another IgG 3 subclass Gm antigenic determinant this result was inconclusive. In the second case, bloodstain and seminal fluid evidence showed that seminal fluid identified on the victim's nightgown had Gm antigenic determinants consistent with those of the suspect and also that blood on the suspect's underpants had Gm antigenic determinants consistent with the deceased's blood. The results of these two cases are interpreted with regard to the Gm results obtained.
有两起血迹和精液污渍证据起到重要作用的案件接受了Gm抗原决定簇的鉴定。在第一起案件中，精液污渍的鉴定显示不存在Gm 1和12决定簇，存在Gm 4。表面上看，这些结果的解读表明精液证据来自两名嫌疑人中的一人。然而，由于免疫球蛋白G（IgG）3亚类上出现的Gm 12缺失并未通过另一种IgG 3亚类Gm抗原决定簇的证明得到证实，所以这个结果没有定论。在第二起案件中，血迹和精液证据表明，在受害者睡衣上发现的精液具有与嫌疑人一致的Gm抗原决定簇，并且嫌疑人内裤上的血迹也具有与死者血液一致的Gm抗原决定簇。根据获得的Gm结果对这两起案件的结果进行了解读。
