Untargeted Proteomics-Based Approach to Investigate Unintended Changes in Genetically Modified Maize for Environmental Risk Assessment Purpose

Profiling technologies, such as proteomics, allow the simultaneous measurement and comparison of thousands of plant components without prior knowledge of their identity. The combination of these non-targeted methods facilitates a more comprehensive approach than targeted methods and thus provides additional opportunities to identify genotypic changes resulting from genetic modification, including new allergens or toxins. The purpose of this study was to investigate unintended changes in GM Bt maize grown in South Africa. In the present study, we used bi-dimensional gel electrophoresis based on fluorescence staining, coupled with mass spectrometry in order to compare the proteome of the field-grown transgenic hybrid (MON810) and its near-isogenic counterpart. Proteomic data showed that energy metabolism and redox homeostasis were unequally modulated in GM Bt and non-GM maize variety samples. In addition, a potential allergenic protein—pathogenesis related protein −1 has been identified in our sample set. Our data shows that the GM variety is not substantially equivalent to its non-transgenic near-isogenic variety and further studies should be conducted in order to address the biological relevance and the potential risks of such changes. These finding highlight the suitability of unbiased profiling approaches to complement current GMO risk assessment practices worldwide.

Implications of the EFSA Scientific Opinion on Site Directed Nucleases 1 and 2 for Risk Assessment of Genome-Edited Plants in the EU

Genome editing is a set of techniques for introducing targeted changes in genomes. It may be achieved by enzymes collectively called site-directed nucleases (SDN). Site-specificity of SDNs is provided either by the DNA binding domain of the protein molecule itself or by RNA molecule(s) that direct SDN to a specific site in the genome. In contrast to transgenesis resulting in the insertion of exogenous DNA, genome editing only affects specific endogenous sequences. Therefore, multiple jurisdictions around the world have exempted certain types of genome-edited organisms from national biosafety regulations completely, or on a case-by-case basis. In the EU, however, the ruling of the Court of Justice on the scope of mutagenesis exemption case C-528/16 indicated that the genome-edited organisms are subject to the GMO Directive, but the practical implications for stakeholders wishing to develop and authorize genome-edited products in the EU remain unclear. European Food Safety Authority in response to a request by European Commission has produced a scientific opinion on plants developed by SDN-1, SDN-2, and oligonucleotide-directed mutagenesis (ODM) genome editing techniques. In this review, I will (1) provide a conceptual background on GMO risk assessment in the EU; (2) will introduce the main conclusions of the EFSA opinion, and (3) will outline the potential impact on the risk assessment of genome-edited plants.

Untargeted Proteomics-Based Approach to Investigate Unintended Changes in Genetically Modified Maize Used for Food and Feed Purposes

Profiling technologies, such as proteomics, allow the simultaneous measurement and comparison of thousands of plant components without prior knowledge of their identity. The combination of these non-targeted methods facilitates a more comprehensive approach than targeted methods and thus provides additional opportunities to identify genotypic changes resulting from genetic modification, including new allergens or toxins. The purpose of this study was to investigate unintended changes in GM Bt maize grown in South Africa. In the present study, we used bi-dimensional gel electrophoresis based on fluorescence staining, coupled with mass spectrometry in order to compare the proteome of the field-grown transgenic hybrid (MON810) and its near-isogenic counterpart. Proteomic data showed that energy metabolism and redox homeostasis were unequally modulated in GM Bt and non-GM maize variety samples. In addition, a potential allergenic protein – pathogenesis related protein -1 has been identified in our sample set. These finding highlight the suitability of unbiased profiling approaches to complement current GMO risk assessment practices worldwide.

Absorption, translocation, and effects of Bt Cry1Ac peptides from transgenic cotton to the intercrops and soil functional bacteria

Insecticidal proteins encoded by the truncated genes from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) in transgenic crops are released into soil mainly through root exudate and crop residues. In the present study, Bt Cry1Ac protein was hydrolyzed by pronase that was secreted by the soil bacterium Streptomyces griseus. Six peptides were identified as the products of enzymatic hydrolysis by nano liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS). One of the six peptides was labeled with radioactive isotope iodine-125 and then purified. The 125I-peptide solution was irrigated to the rhizosphere soil of watermelon seedlings (Citrullus lanatus L.) and wheat seedlings (Triticum aestivum L.), which the two crops usually intercrop with cotton in China. Detection of radioactivity in both plant tissues within one hour proved adsorption, uptake and translocation of the peptide into watermelon and wheat seedlings. Three of the identified peptides were sprayed onto the seedling leaves of watermelon, wheat and maize (Zea mays L.) in the field or the growth chamber. No significant effects on plant growth were observed. These peptides also did not affect growth of organic phosphate-dissolving, nitrogen-fixing, and potassium-dissolving bacteria in the culture. This study provides a new view of GMO risk assessment methodology.

EU Authorization of GMOs—The Failure of Deliberation

This chapter examines the extent to which epistemic, political, and diversity challenges arising from the authorization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are actually met in practice. It first considers how the European Commission defines the boundaries of its discretionary power as the risk administration of the internal market by contrasting Commission decision-making with two ideal models of administrative legitimation, the control, and the deliberative model. It then looks at two controversial cases of GMO authorization that illustrate the role of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in GMO risk assessment, as well as the scientification of the Commission’s risk management and the politicization of comitology decision-making. It also discusses the European Union General Court's responses to the administrative process of GMO authorizations. The chapter shows that top-down decision-making combined with scientification has contributed to the failure of deliberation in GMO risk regulation.