Degradation of Cry1Ab Protein from Genetically Modified Maize in the Bovine Gastrointestinal Tract

Lutz, Bodo; Wiedemann, S.; Einspanier, Ralf; Mayer, J. B.; Albrecht, Christiane

doi:10.1021/jf049222x

Cited by 105 publications

(109 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The average daily gain, tended to improve with Bt-CM feeding in comparison to C-CM. Present findings support the recommendations (Hamilton et al, 2004 ;Flachowsky et al, 2005;Lutz et al, 2005 ;Alexander et al, 2007 ;Flachowsky et al, 2007;Trabalza-Marinucci et al, 2008) that inclusion of genetically modified feed in animal feeding did not influence animal performance, if compositionally and nutritionally genetically modified plants is equivalent to conventional varieties (Berberich et al, 1996;Bertrand et al, 2005;Nida et al, 1996;Castillo et al, 2006). Further, genetically modified plants without substantial change in their composition do not significantly differ in their nutritional value from those of the isogenic varieties (Singhal et al, 2011).…”

Section: Performance Digestibility and Nutritive Valuesupporting

confidence: 85%

Effect of Bt-cottonseed meal feeding on performance, fermentation, ciliates population and microbial hydrolytic enzymes in lamb

Tripathi¹,

Raghuvansi²,

Mondal³

et al. 2014

Afr. J. Biotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effect of the Bt-or conventional cottonseed meal was assessed as well as the performance, fermentation, ciliate protozoa population and microbial enzyme of lambs. Three feed mixture (FM, forage: concentrate ration of 35: 65) contained groundnut oilmeal (GNM), insect protected Btcottonseed meal (Bt-CM) or conventional whole cottonseed (C-CM) as protein source, were fed for 123 days to the control, C-CM and Bt-CM group of lambs, respectively. Whole seed meal Bt-and C-CM had similar nutrient composition. The Ca was higher while Zn content was lower in C-CM. Both CM had similar metabolizable energy (MJ/kg DM). Lambs of three groups had similar daily gain, DM intake and nutrient digestibility. Rumen fluid pH and TVFA were similar, while ammonia-N (mg/l) was higher (p<0.001) in control lambs. Cottonseed feeding eliminated (p<0.001) rumen protozoa; protozoa were 101.1, 59.0 and 39.6 ×10 4 / ml in rumen fluid respectively in control, C-CM and Bt-CM diet fed lambs. Rumen enzymes activities of xyalanase, β-glucosidase and β-xylosidase were similar, while Bt-CM feeding reduced (p=0.010) carboxymethyl cellulase (CMCase) activity by 47% and increased proteases activity by 22%. The study concludes that inclusion of Bt-CM produced pronounced defaunation with reduced rumen ammonia concentrations, which improved daily gain. Therefore, Bt-CM can be incorporated at 180 g/kg in lamb diet.

show abstract

Section: Performance Digestibility and Nutritive Valuesupporting

confidence: 85%

Effect of Bt-cottonseed meal feeding on performance, fermentation, ciliates population and microbial hydrolytic enzymes in lamb

Tripathi¹,

Raghuvansi²,

Mondal³

et al. 2014

Afr. J. Biotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, these Cry proteins are degraded by enzymatic activity in the gastrointestinal tract of animals fed on cotton MON 15985 or derived products (see Section 5.1.4.2), meaning that only low amounts of Cry proteins would remain intact to pass into faeces. This was demonstrated for Cry1Ab (Einspanier et al, 2004;Lutz et al, 2005Lutz et al, , 2006Wiedemann et al, 2006;Guertler et al, 2008). There would subsequently be further degradation of these Cry proteins in the faecal material due to intrinsic microbial proteolytic activity.…”

Section: Interactions Of the Gm Plant With Non-target Organisms 78mentioning

confidence: 88%

Scientific Opinion on applications (EFSA-GMO-UK-2008-57 and EFSA-GMO-RX-MON15985) for the placing on the market of insect-resistant genetically modified cotton MON 15985 for food and feed uses, import and processing, and for the renewal of authorisation o

Arpaia¹,

Birch²,

Chesson³

et al. 2014

EFSA Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cotton MON 15985 was developed by biolistic transformation of cotton MON 531 to express Cry2Ab2 and GUS in addition to the Cry1Ac and NPTII proteins. Cry proteins in MON 15985 confer resistance to major lepidopteran cotton pests, whereas the GUS and NPTII proteins were used as markers during product development. Molecular characterisation of MON 15985 did not give rise to safety issues. The EFSA GMO Panel could not conclude on the potential occurrence of unintended effects for agronomic and phenotypic characteristics owing to data limitations. Compositional data gave no indication of unintended effects for which further assessment was needed. The Panel concludes that cotton MON 15985, as described in these applications, is as safe and nutritious as its conventional counterpart and other non-genetically modified varieties, and considers it unlikely that the overall allergenicity of the whole plant is changed. Environmental risk assessment was restricted to the exposure through faecal material from animals fed with cotton products of MON 15985 and its accidental spillage. Following a weight of evidence approach and considering the poor ability of cotton to survive outside cultivated land, despite the agronomic and phenotypic data limitations, the Panel concludes that there is very low likelihood of any adverse environmental impacts. The aadA and oriV sequences in MON 15985 may facilitate the stabilisation of nptII through double homologous recombination. However, considering the limited presence of intact DNA from MON 15985 in feed and the limited occurrence of horizontal transfer of DNA from plant material to bacteria, the Panel concludes that it is highly unlikely that nptII from MON 15985 will be transferred to bacteria. Since both EFSA-GMO-UK-2008-57 and EFSA-GMO-RX-MON15985 cover cotton MON 15985, the EFSA GMO Panel provides a single scientific opinion, valid for both applications.The EFSA GMO Panel evaluated cotton MON 15985 with reference to the scope and appropriate principles described in its guidance documents for the risk assessment of genetically modified (GM) plants and derived food and feed (EFSA, 2006a; EFSA GMO Panel, 2011a), environmental risk assessment (ERA) (EFSA GMO Panel, 2010a) and for renewal of authorisations of existing GMO products lawfully placed on the market (EFSA, 2006b). The scientific evaluation of the risk assessment included molecular characterisation of the inserted DNA and analysis of the expression of the corresponding proteins. An evaluation of the comparative analyses of compositional, agronomic and phenotypic characteristics was undertaken, and the safety of the newly expressed proteins and the whole food/feed was evaluated with respect to potential toxicity, allergenicity and nutritional wholesomeness. An evaluation of environmental impacts and the post-market environmental monitoring (PMEM) plan was also undertaken.The scope of applications EFSA-GMO-UK-2008-57 and EFSA-GMO-RX-MON15985 covers the MON 15985 event in cotton species Gossypium hirsutum L. and G. barba...

show abstract

“…Evidence of absorption of Cry1Ab proteins was not obtained from assays of calf tissue extracts including liver, spleen, kidney, mesenteric lymph node and muscle (Chowdhury et al, 2003a). The plasma sample from cows fed non-transgenic maize or transgenic maize (collected before or after 1 or 2 months of feeding) showed no effects of the Cry1Ab protein degraded during digestion in the bovine gastrointestinal tract (Lutz et al, 2005;Paul et al, 2008 and. No toxicity of Cry1Ab at non-physiological high concentrations (100 ng/ml) was observed in short-as well as in long-term experiments as to the viability of rumen epithelial cells (Bondzio et al, 2008).…”

Section: Possible Mechanisms For Gm Effects On Animalsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Do genetically modified crops affect animal reproduction? A review of the ongoing debate

Zhang

Shi

2011

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past few years, genetically modified (GM) crops aimed at producing food/feed that became part of the regular agriculture in many areas of the world. However, we are uncertain whether GM food and feed can exert potential adverse effects on humans or animals. Of importance, the reproductive toxicology of GM crops has been studied using a number of methods, and by feeding GM crops to a number species of animals to ensure the safety assessment of GM food and feed. It appears that there are no adverse effects of GM crops on many species of animals in acute and short-term feeding studies, but serious debates of effects of long-term and multigenerational feeding studies remain. The aims of this review are to focus on the latest (last 3 to 4 years) findings and debates on reproduction of male and female animals after feeding daily diets containing the GM crops, and to present the possible mechanism(s) to explain their influences.

show abstract

Degradation of Cry1Ab Protein from Genetically Modified Maize in the Bovine Gastrointestinal Tract

Cited by 105 publications

References 12 publications

Effect of Bt-cottonseed meal feeding on performance, fermentation, ciliates population and microbial hydrolytic enzymes in lamb

Effect of Bt-cottonseed meal feeding on performance, fermentation, ciliates population and microbial hydrolytic enzymes in lamb

Scientific Opinion on applications (EFSA-GMO-UK-2008-57 and EFSA-GMO-RX-MON15985) for the placing on the market of insect-resistant genetically modified cotton MON 15985 for food and feed uses, import and processing, and for the renewal of authorisation o

Do genetically modified crops affect animal reproduction? A review of the ongoing debate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About