Explanatory note on DNA sequence similarity searches in the context of the assessment of horizontal gene transfer from plants to microorganisms

Gennaro, Andrea; Gomes, Ana; Herman, Lieve; Nogué, Fabien; Papadopoulou, Nikoletta; Tebbe, Christoph C.

doi:10.2903/sp.efsa.2017.en-1273

Cited by 67 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At the time of submission of the renewal dossier, the applicant provided a complete bioinformatic dataset for maize MON 88017 event including an analysis of the insert and flanking sequences, an analysis of the potential similarity to allergens and toxins of the newly expressed proteins and of all possible open reading frames (ORFs) within the insert and spanning the junction sites, an analysis of possible horizontal gene transfer (EFSA, 2017b), and a safety assessment of the newly expressed proteins Cry3Bb1 and CP4 EPSPS regarding their capacity to trigger celiac disease (EFSA GMO Panel, 2017a). Upon EFSA request, the applicant provided additional information followed by further clarifications on the celiac disease analysis for Cry3Bb1 protein.…”

Section: Data and Methodologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 88017 for renewal authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐014)

Organisms¹,

Veronesi²,

Álvarez³

et al. 2020

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following the submission of application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐014 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Monsanto Company the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the insect‐resistant and herbicide‐tolerant genetically modified maize MON 88017, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the EU. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post‐market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses, and additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequence of the event in maize MON 88017 considered for renewal is identical to the sequence of the originally assessed event, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐014 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize MON 88017.

show abstract

Section: Data and Methodologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 88017 for renewal authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐014)

Organisms¹,

Veronesi²,

Álvarez³

et al. 2020

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The GMO Panel conducted its assessment in line with the principles described in Regulation (EU) No 503/2013, its applicable guidelines (i.e., EFSA GMO Panel, ,b, ,b, ) and explanatory notes (i.e. EFSA, ,b) for the risk assessment of GM plants. During its risk assessment the GMO Panel considered all additional unpublished studies as listed in Appendix B for potential effects of the GM food and feed on human and animal health and the environment.…”

Section: Data and Methodologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 87460 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × NK603 and subcombinations, for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2016‐134)

Naegeli¹,

Bresson²,

Dalmay³

et al. 2019

EFS2

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maize MON 87427 ×MON 87460 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × NK603 (five‐event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine five single events: MON 87427, MON 87460, MON 89034, MIR162 and NK603. The GMO Panel previously assessed the five single maize events and eleven of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the 11 subcombinations that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety were identified. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in the five‐event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the five‐event stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to its non‐GM comparator and the non‐GM reference varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of viable grains of the five‐event stack maize into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in the 14 maize subcombinations not previously assessed and concludes that these are expected to be as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to the single events, the previously assessed subcombinations and the five‐event stack maize. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the five‐event stack maize. Post‐market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the five‐event stack maize and its subcombinations are as safe as its non‐GM comparator and the tested non‐GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

show abstract

“…Increases up to 8% in manganese and up to 11% in magnesium were observed in the GM maize as compared to its non‐GM comparator. These two minerals are essential elements for humans and Adequate Intakes (AI) have been proposed (EFSA, ,b). While no Tolerable Upper Intake Levels (UL) are set for manganese, for magnesium the UL refer to dissociable Mg salts (e.g.…”

Section: Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 × DAS‐40278‐9 and subcombinations independently of their origin for food and feed uses, import and processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2013‐113)

Naegeli¹,

Bresson²,

Dalmay³

et al. 2019

EFS2

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 × DAS‐40278‐9 (five‐event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine five single events: MON 89034, 1507, MON 88017, 59122 and DAS‐40278‐9. The GMO Panel previously assessed the 5 single maize events and 11 of their subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or their 11 subcombinations that could modify the original conclusions on their safety were identified. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicates that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in the five‐event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the five‐event stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to its non‐GM comparator and the non‐GM reference varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of the five‐event stack maize into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in the 14 maize subcombinations for which no experimental data were provided, and concludes that they are expected to be as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to the single events, the previously assessed subcombinations and the five‐event stack maize. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the five‐event stack maize. No post‐market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the five‐event stack maize and its subcombinations are as safe as its non‐GM comparator and the tested non‐GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

show abstract

Explanatory note on DNA sequence similarity searches in the context of the assessment of horizontal gene transfer from plants to microorganisms

Cited by 67 publications

References 15 publications

Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 88017 for renewal authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐014)

Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 88017 for renewal authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐014)

Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 87460 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × NK603 and subcombinations, for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2016‐134)

Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 × DAS‐40278‐9 and subcombinations independently of their origin for food and feed uses, import and processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2013‐113)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About