Search

Your search keyword '"Schaart J"' showing total 22 results
Start Over Author "Schaart J" Publication Year Range Last 10 years
22 results on '"Schaart J"'

3. Risk assessment of T-DNA borders from Agrobacterium tumefaciens in cisgenic crops

Author

Jacobsen, E., Schaart, J., Jacobsen, E., and Schaart, J.

Abstract

Cisgenic plants are genetically modified plants that do not contain foreign genes. The plants have been enriched with genes from sexually compatible plants. 1,2,3,4,5 The introduced genes are flanked by their native promoters and terminators in natural orientation, and contain their native introns. The Netherlands Commission on Genetic Modification (COGEM) has discussed the safety of cisgenic plants, and has concluded that the risks of cisgenic plants are similar to the risks of conventionally bred plants. However, in view of food and feed safety, the COGEM recommended investigating whether T-DNA borders from Agrobacterium tumefaciens may lead to allergenicity or toxicity.6 When A. tumefaciens is used for genetic modification, so-called T-DNA borders repeats may co-insert with the cisgenes. Remnants of the T-DNA borders are found back as two short DNA sequences of at maximum only three and 22 basepairs, respectively, which flank the cisgene in the cisgenic plant. The COGEM experts are of the opinion that it is very unlikely that these short DNA sequences will lead to a risk, for three reasons. Firstly, it is very unlikely that this border insertion will give rise to a new functional protein. Secondly, the chance is negligibly small that, if a functional protein would be produced, that this protein would lead to an ecological advantage of the plant. Thirdly, the genomes of plants are dynamic, and in nature numerous small or larger rearrangements of the genome occur. Potential risks of insertion of short ‘foreign’ DNA sequences therefore do not exceed the risks of naturally occurring risks or risks 2 of conventional breeding. For these reasons, the very unlikely risks are, according to the COGEM, within the baseline of conventional breeding.7 The COGEM discussed this in a meeting with two experts from RIKILT and SIR, working in the field of feed and food safety. These experts did neither falsify nor confirm the scientific reasoning of the COGEM experts, but instead pr

Published
2017

4. Induced early flowering

Author

Schaart, J., Wiel, C. van de, Schaart, J., and Wiel, C. van de

Abstract

Video about induced early flowering

Published
2017

5. New Plant Breeding Techniques (NPBTs)

Author

Wiel, C. van de, Schaart, J., Lotz, B., Wiel, C. van de, Schaart, J., and Lotz, B.

Abstract

Presentation about plant breeding techniques (NPBT)

Published
2017

9. Coexistence

Author

Wiel, C. van de, Schaart, J., Lotz, B., Wiel, C. van de, Schaart, J., and Lotz, B.

Abstract

Presentation about coexistence of GM and non-GM cultivations, consumers' preference.

Published
2017

11. Reverse breeding - complications

Author

Schaart, J., Wiel, C. van de, Schaart, J., and Wiel, C. van de

Abstract

Video recording about breeding and genetics

Published
2017

12. Reverse breeding

Author

Schaart, J., Wiel, C. van de, Schaart, J., and Wiel, C. van de

Abstract

Video about breeding and genetics

Published
2017

17. Hybride cultivars: voor- en nadelen

Author

Wiel, C. van de, Schaart, J., Lotz, B., Wiel, C. van de, Schaart, J., and Lotz, B.

Abstract

Presentatie over de voor- en nadelen van hybride rassen

Published
2017

20. Genetische modificatie: wet & regelgeving

Author

Wiel, C. van de, Schaart, J., Lotz, B., Wiel, C. van de, Schaart, J., and Lotz, B.

Abstract

Presentatie over regelgeving rondom GG planten, met toelichting.

Published
2017

21. New traits in crops produced by genome editing techniques based on deletions.

Author

Wiel, C., Schaart, J., Lotz, L., and Smulders, M.

Subjects
*PLANT breeding, *GENOME editing, *MUTAGENS, *DISEASE resistance of plants, *MUTATION breeding
Abstract

One of the most promising New Plant Breeding Techniques is genome editing (also called gene editing) with the help of a programmable site-directed nuclease (SDN). In this review, we focus on SDN-1, which is the generation of small deletions or insertions (indels) at a precisely defined location in the genome with zinc finger nucleases (ZFN), TALENs, or CRISPR-Cas9. The programmable nuclease is used to induce a double-strand break in the DNA, while the repair is left to the plant cell itself, and mistakes are introduced, while the cell is repairing the double-strand break using the relatively error-prone NHEJ pathway. From a biological point of view, it could be considered as a form of targeted mutagenesis. We first discuss improvements and new technical variants for SDN-1, in particular employing CRISPR-Cas, and subsequently explore the effectiveness of targeted deletions that eliminate the function of a gene, as an approach to generate novel traits useful for improving agricultural sustainability, including disease resistances. We compare them with examples of deletions that resulted in novel functionality as known from crop domestication and classical mutation breeding (both using radiation and chemical mutagens). Finally, we touch upon regulatory and access and benefit sharing issues regarding the plants produced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2017
Full Text
View/download PDF

22. A potential harmful effect of dexamethasone in non-severe COVID-19: results from the COPPER-pilot study.

Author

Kocks J, Kerkhof M, Scherpenisse J, van de Maat A, van Geer-Postmus I, le Rütte T, Schaart J, Gans ROB, and Kerstjens HAM

Abstract

This study suggests caution when prescribing systemic corticosteroids to patients with #COVID19 who show mild-to-moderate pulmonary symptoms because a harmful effect cannot be excluded https://bit.ly/3P4nOjQ., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: J. Kocks, M. Kerkhof, A. van de Maat, I. van Geer-Postmus and T. le Rütte were employed by the General Practitioners Research Institute (GPRI) at the time of the study. In the past 3 years (2019–2022), the GPRI conducted investigator- and sponsor-initiated research funded by noncommercial organisations, academic institutes and pharmaceutical companies (including AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Mundipharma, Novartis and Teva). H. Kerstjens reports no conflicts of interest for this study; unrelated to this study, his institution has received funding for his studies and payments for his consultancy from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK and Novartis. R. Gans, J. Scherpenisse and J. Schaart report no conflicts of interest for this study., (Copyright ©The authors 2022.)

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results