Testing Potential Effects of Maize Expressing the Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab Endotoxin (Bt Maize) on Mycorrhizal Fungal Communities via DNA- and RNA-Based Pyrosequencing and Molecular Fingerprinting

Verbruggen, Erik; Kuramae, Eiko E.; Hillekens, Remy; Hollander, Mattias de; Kiers, E. Toby; Röling, Wilfred F. M.; Kowalchuk, George A.; Heijden, Marcel G. A. van der

doi:10.1128/aem.01372-12

Cited by 52 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 63 publications

(54 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…De Vaufleury et al (2007) found no difference in mycorrhizal colonisation between Bt (MEB307 expressing Cry1Ab toxin) and non Bt maize lines. Verbruggen et al (2012) tested two maize cultivars (Cry1Ab) for their effects on soil AM fungal communities and the main conclusion of the experiment was that no consistent difference was detected between AM fungal communities associated with GM and non-GM plants. These results are in contrast with our findings.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi colonisation of Cry3 toxin-producing Bt maize and near isogenic maize

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the fact that, on average, approximately 5-6 metric tons/ha of Bt maize stubble enter the soil on more than 170 million of hectares worldwide, the environmental impact of genetically modified maize plants on the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) is poorly known. In this study, the mycorrhizal colonisation on the roots of Bt maize (DAS-59122-7) and its near isogenic line was examined during the whole vegetation period. Cry3 toxin-producing Bt maize and its near isogenic line were grown in an experimental field in Julianna-major, Nagykovácsi, Hungary. DAS-59122-7 maize produces Cry34Ab1, Cry35Ab1 toxins and pat proteins for herbicide tolerance. The study assessed whether similar arbuscular mycorrhizal colonisation can be observed on the root of the Bt and near isogenic maize line and whether there are any differences in the temporal dynamics of AMF development. The arbuscular, hyphal and the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi colonisation were higher in the near isogenic line as compared to its Bt counterpart, but no significant effect of the maize line was found as regards vesicle colonisation. The intensity of the arbuscular infection increased over time during plant maturation. DAS-59122-7 Bt maize had a negative effect on the initial development of AMF under field conditions, but no difference was seen in the case of the last two sampling dates (day 82 and 135). The reason of the latter is still not known.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi colonisation of Cry3 toxin-producing Bt maize and near isogenic maize

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…biotic or abiotic. Starting from the available literature we proposed and assessed the potential risk related to thirteen possible stresses: (1) climate change (global warming) (Van der Putten, 2012), (2) land use change (Spurgeon et al, 2013), (3) habitat fragmentation (Halme et al, 2013), (4) intensive human exploitation (Tsiafouli et al, 2015), (5) soil organic matter decline (Heenan et al, 1995), (6) industrial pollution (Hafez and Elbestawy, 2009), (7) nuclear pollution (radioactivity) (Brodie et al, 2006), (8) soil compaction (Whalley et al, 1995), (9) soil erosion (Pimentel et al, 1995), (10) soil sealing (Setälä et al, 2014), (11) soil salinization (Sardinha et al, 2003), (12) use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture (Verbruggen et al, 2012), and (13) introduction and diffusion of invasive species (Kourtev et al, 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…intensive human exploitation or soil pollution) on specific groups of soil organisms (e.g. bacteria or earthworms) (Verbruggen et al, 2012). Therefore, we can assume that the scientific community has an appropriate level of knowledge on this topic and, therefore, a knowledge-based assessment of potential risk is possible.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A knowledge-based approach to estimating the magnitude and spatial patterns of potential threats to soil biodiversity

Orgiazzi

Panagos

Yiğini

et al. 2016

Science of The Total Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Because of the increasing pressures exerted on soil, below-ground life is under threat. Knowledge-based rankings of potential threats to different components of soil biodiversity were developed in order to assess the spatial distribution of threats on a European scale. A list of 13 potential threats to soil biodiversity was proposed to experts with different backgrounds in order to assess the potential for three major components of soil biodiversity: soil microorganisms, fauna, and biological functions. This approach allowed us to obtain knowledge-based rankings of threats. These classifications formed the basis for the development of indices through an additive aggregation model that, along with ad-hoc proxies for each pressure, allowed us to preliminarily assess the spatial patterns of potential threats. Intensive exploitation was identified as the highest pressure. In contrast, the use of genetically modified organisms in agriculture was considered as the threat with least potential. The potential impact of climate change showed the highest uncertainty. Fourteen out of the 27 considered countries have more than 40% of their soils with moderate-high to high potential risk for all three components of soil biodiversity. Arable soils are the most exposed to pressures. Soils within the boreal biogeographic region showed the lowest risk potential. The majority of soils at risk are outside the boundaries of protected areas. First maps of risks to three components of soil biodiversity based on the current scientific knowledge were developed. Despite the intrinsic limits of knowledge-based assessments, a remarkable potential risk to soil biodiversity was observed. Guidelines to preliminarily identify and circumscribe soils potentially at risk are provided. This approach may be used in future research to assess threat at both local and global scale and identify areas of possible risk and, subsequently, design appropriate strategies for monitoring and protection of soil biota.

show abstract

“…The EFSA GMO Panel considers that conclusions about potential adverse effects of maize MON 810 and the Cry1Ab protein it expresses on non-target organisms and the ecosystem services they provide and/or routes of exposure to plant-produced Bt-toxins can be drawn from the studies by Peterson et al and Verbruggen et al (2012), and that the conclusions reached by the authors are supported by the data.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Opinion updating the risk assessment conclusions and risk management recommendations on the genetically modified insect resistant maize MON 810

2012

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA GMO Panel) compiled its previous risk assessment conclusions and risk management recommendations on the genetically modified insect resistant maize MON 810, and considered their validity in the light of new relevant scientific publications published from 2009 onwards. Following a search of the scientific literature published between 2009 and October 2012, the EFSA GMO Panel identified 165 peer-reviewed publications containing evidence specific to the risk assessment and/or management of maize MON 810, of which 68 publications were discussed and/or cited in previous EFSA GMO Panel scientific outputs. From the remaining 97 publications, eight were relevant for the molecular characterisation, 27 for food and feed safety assessment, 55 for the environmental risk assessment and/or risk management, two for the molecular characterisation and the environmental risk assessment and/or risk management and five for the food and feed safety assessment and the environmental risk assessment and/or risk management of maize MON 810. None of these publications reported new information that would invalidate the previous conclusions on the safety of maize MON 810 made by the EFSA GMO Panel. Therefore, the EFSA GMO Panel considers that its previous risk assessment conclusions on maize MON 810, as well as its previous recommendations on risk mitigation measures and monitoring, remain valid and applicable. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 2903/j.efsa.2012.3017 Posted at the Zurich Open Repository and Archive, University of Zurich ZORA URL: https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-75246 Published Version Originally published at: Arpaia, Salvatore; Birch, Andrew N E; Chesson, Andrew; du Jardin, Patrick; Gathmann, Achim; Gropp, Jürgen; Herman, Lieve; Hoen-Sorteberg, Hilde-Gunn; Jones, Huw; Kiss, Jozsef; Kleter, Gijs; Lovik, Martinus; Messéan, Antoine; Naegeli, Hanspeter; Nielsen, Kaare Magne; Ovesna, Jaroslava; Perry, Joe; Rostoks, Nils; Tebbe, Christoph (2012) peer-reviewed publications containing evidence specific to the risk assessment and/or management of maize MON 810, of which 68 publications were discussed and/or cited in previous EFSA GMO Panel scientific outputs. From the remaining 97 publications, eight were relevant for the molecular characterisation, 27 for food and feed safety assessment, 55 for the environmental risk assessment and/or risk management, two for the molecular characterisation and the environmental risk assessment and/or risk management and five for the food and feed safety assessment and the environmental risk assessment and/or risk management of maize MON 810. None of these publications reported new information that would invalidate the previous conclusions on the safety of maize MON 810 made by the EFSA GMO Panel. Therefore, the EFSA GMO Panel considers that its previous risk assessment conclusions on maize MON 810, as well as its previous recommendations on risk mitigation measur...

show abstract

Testing Potential Effects of Maize Expressing the Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab Endotoxin (Bt Maize) on Mycorrhizal Fungal Communities via DNA- and RNA-Based Pyrosequencing and Molecular Fingerprinting

Cited by 52 publications

References 63 publications

Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi colonisation of Cry3 toxin-producing Bt maize and near isogenic maize

Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi colonisation of Cry3 toxin-producing Bt maize and near isogenic maize

A knowledge-based approach to estimating the magnitude and spatial patterns of potential threats to soil biodiversity

Scientific Opinion updating the risk assessment conclusions and risk management recommendations on the genetically modified insect resistant maize MON 810

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About