2003
DOI: 10.1016/s0956-7135(02)00062-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Two detection methods of genetically modified maize and the state of its import into Japan

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

0
18
0
2

Year Published

2003
2003
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
18
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The PCR technique is very specific, sensitive and safe and is able to detect both events of genetic modification (Bertheau et al, 2002;Giovannini and Concillo, 2002) and distinguish events associated with different gene constructs expressing the same protein (Yamaguchi et al, 2003). However, this technique also presents some limitations, such as: 1) the difficulty involved in designing primers, as it is necessary to know the genetic sequence of the DNA introduced into the GMO, and this information is usually confidential (Holst-Jensen et al, 2003); 2) the need for appropriate equipment and trained personnel; 3) the relatively high cost because the test is specific for each genetic alteration introduced; and 4) the special care required to avoid sample contamination (Miraglia et al, 2004, Yamaguchi et al, 2003.…”
Section: Pcrmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The PCR technique is very specific, sensitive and safe and is able to detect both events of genetic modification (Bertheau et al, 2002;Giovannini and Concillo, 2002) and distinguish events associated with different gene constructs expressing the same protein (Yamaguchi et al, 2003). However, this technique also presents some limitations, such as: 1) the difficulty involved in designing primers, as it is necessary to know the genetic sequence of the DNA introduced into the GMO, and this information is usually confidential (Holst-Jensen et al, 2003); 2) the need for appropriate equipment and trained personnel; 3) the relatively high cost because the test is specific for each genetic alteration introduced; and 4) the special care required to avoid sample contamination (Miraglia et al, 2004, Yamaguchi et al, 2003.…”
Section: Pcrmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, this technique also presents some limitations, such as: 1) the difficulty involved in designing primers, as it is necessary to know the genetic sequence of the DNA introduced into the GMO, and this information is usually confidential (Holst-Jensen et al, 2003); 2) the need for appropriate equipment and trained personnel; 3) the relatively high cost because the test is specific for each genetic alteration introduced; and 4) the special care required to avoid sample contamination (Miraglia et al, 2004, Yamaguchi et al, 2003.…”
Section: Pcrmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It was found that the PCR is suitable for analyzing food Matsuoka et al, 2002;Meyer et al, 1996;Allmann et al, 1993) as it is the method selected for detecting GMOs in food (Yamaguchi et al, 2003;Anklam et al, 2002;Lipp et al, 2000;Meyer, 1999;Vollenhofer et al, 1999). This method includes a first amplification of certain soy sequences from plant DNA.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is also the only method that can be applied to field samples. A qualitative and quantitative screening PCR-based method has been proposed by food researchers for specific detection of GM soybean and maize (Jankiewicz et al, 1999;Yamaguchi et al, 2003;Yun et al, 2004).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%