Search

Abstract Following the submission of application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐017 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer Agriculture BVBA 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 × MON 810, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post‐market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, and updated bioinformatic analysis. 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 sequences of the events in maize MON 88017 × MON 810 considered for renewal are identical to the sequence of the originally assessed events, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐017 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize MON 88017 × MON 810.

Abstract Maize 1507 × MIR162 × MON810 × NK603 (four‐event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine four single events: 1507, MIR162, MON810 and NK603. The GMO Panel previously assessed the four single events and six of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single events or the six 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 four‐event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as its non‐GM comparator and the non‐GM reference varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of viable seeds of the four‐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 four maize subcombinations not previously assessed and concludes that these are expected to be as safe as the single events, the previously assessed subcombinations and the four‐event stack maize. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the four‐event stack maize. Post‐market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack maize and its subcombinations are as safe as the non‐GM comparator and the tested non‐GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Abstract Soybean DAS–8419–2 × DAS–44406–6 was developed to provide protection against certain lepidopteran pests and tolerance to 2,4–dichlorophenoxyacetic acid and other related phenoxy herbicides, and glyphosate‐ and glufosinate ammonium‐containing herbicides. The Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) Panel previously assessed the two single soybean events and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single soybean events, leading to modification of the original conclusions on their safety have been 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 soybean events and of the newly expressed proteins in the two‐event stack soybean does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. In the case of accidental release of viable DAS–8419–2 × DAS–44406–6 seeds into the environment, soybean DAS–8419–2 × DAS–44406–6 would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of soybean DAS–8419–2 × DAS–44406–6. In conclusion, the GMO Panel considers that soybean DAS–8419–2 × DAS–44406–6, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the non‐genetically modified soybean reference varieties tested with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Abstract Advances in molecular and synthetic biology are enabling the engineering of gene drives in insects for disease vector/pest control. Engineered gene drives (that bias their own inheritance) can be designed either to suppress interbreeding target populations or modify them with a new genotype. Depending on the engineered gene drive system, theoretically, a genetic modification of interest could spread through target populations and persist indefinitely, or be restricted in its spread or persistence. While research on engineered gene drives and their applications in insects is advancing at a fast pace, it will take several years for technological developments to move to practical applications for deliberate release into the environment. Some gene drive modified insects (GDMIs) have been tested experimentally in the laboratory, but none has been assessed in small‐scale confined field trials or in open release trials as yet. There is concern that the deliberate release of GDMIs in the environment may have possible irreversible and unintended consequences. As a proactive measure, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has been requested by the European Commission to review whether its previously published guidelines for the risk assessment of genetically modified animals (EFSA, 2012 and 2013), including insects (GMIs), are adequate and sufficient for GDMIs, primarily disease vectors, agricultural pests and invasive species, for deliberate release into the environment. Under this mandate, EFSA was not requested to develop risk assessment guidelines for GDMIs. In this Scientific Opinion, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) concludes that EFSA's guidelines are adequate, but insufficient for the molecular characterisation (MC), environmental risk assessment (ERA) and post‐market environmental monitoring (PMEM) of GDMIs. While the MC,ERA and PMEM of GDMIs can build on the existing risk assessment framework for GMIs that do not contain engineered gene drives, there are specific areas where further guidance is needed for GDMIs.

Abstract The European Commission requested the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) to assess whether section 4 (hazard identification) and the conclusions of EFSA's Scientific opinion on the risk assessment of plants developed using zinc finger nuclease type 3 technique (ZFN‐3) and other site‐directed nucleases (SDN) with similar function are valid for plants developed via SDN‐1, SDN‐2 and oligonucleotide‐directed mutagenesis (ODM). In delivering this Opinion, the GMO Panel compared the hazards associated with plants produced via SDN‐1, SDN‐2 and ODM with those associated with plants obtained via both SDN‐3 and conventional breeding. Unlike for SDN‐3 methods, the application of SDN‐1, SDN‐2 and ODM approaches aims to modify genomic sequences in a way which can result in plants not containing any transgene, intragene or cisgene. Consequently, the GMO Panel concludes that those considerations which are specifically related to the presence of a transgene, intragene or cisgene included in section 4 and the conclusions of the Opinion on SDN‐3 are not relevant to plants obtained via SDN‐1, SDN‐2 or ODM as defined in this Opinion. Overall, the GMO Panel did not identify new hazards specifically linked to the genomic modification produced via SDN‐1, SDN‐2 or ODM as compared with both SDN‐3 and conventional breeding. Furthermore, the GMO Panel considers that the existing Guidance for risk assessment of food and feed from genetically modified plants and the Guidance on the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants are sufficient but are only partially applicable to plants generated via SDN‐1, SDN‐2 or ODM. Indeed, those guidance documents’ requirements that are linked to the presence of exogenous DNA are not relevant for the risk assessment of plants developed via SDN‐1, SDN‐2 or ODM approaches if the genome of the final product does not contain exogenous DNA.

Similarly to other plant genomes of similar size, more than half of the genome of P. patens is covered by Transposable Elements (TEs). However, the composition and distribution of P. patens TEs is quite peculiar, with Long Terminal Repeat (LTR)-retrotransposons, which form patches of TE-rich regions interleaved with gene-rich regions, accounting for the vast majority of the TE space. We have already shown that RLG1, the most abundant TE in P. patens, is expressed in non-stressed protonema tissue. Here we present a non-targeted analysis of the TE expression based on RNA-Seq data and confirmed by qRT-PCR analyses that shows that, at least four LTR-RTs (RLG1, RLG2, RLC4 and tRLC5) and one DNA transposon (PpTc2) are expressed in P. patens. These TEs are expressed during development or under stresses that P. patens frequently faces, such as dehydratation/rehydratation stresses, suggesting that TEs have ample possibilities to transpose during P. patens life cycle. Indeed, an analysis of the TE polymorphisms among four different P. patens accessions shows that different TE families have recently transposed in this species and have generated genetic variability that may have phenotypic consequences, as a fraction of the TE polymorphisms are within or close to genes. Among the transcribed and mobile TEs, tRLC5 is particularly interesting as it concentrates in a single position per chromosome that could coincide with the centromere, and its expression is specifically induced in young sporophyte, where meiosis takes place.

Abstract Following the submission of application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐002 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Monsanto Company, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of EFSA (GMO) was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the herbicide‐tolerant genetically modified oilseed rape GT73. 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 oilseed rape GT73 considered for renewal of authorisation 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‐002 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on oilseed rape GT73.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) previously assessed oilseed rape Ms8 × Rf3 × GT73 and its subcombinations Ms8 × GT73 and Rf3 × GT73 according to the scope as defined in the application EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2009‐75, and was not in the position to complete the safety assessment of products rich in protein, such as rapeseed protein isolates or products of this nature in animal feeding. Following a mandate from the European Commission, the GMO Panel assessed a 28‐day toxicity study in mice with the glyphosate oxidoreductase (GOXv247) protein, provided to complement information related to application EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2009‐75 for the placing on the market of oilseed rape Ms8 × Rf3 × GT73 and its subcombinations Ms8 × GT73 and Rf3 × GT73, for food and feed uses, import and processing, with the exception of isolated seed protein for food. The 28‐day toxicity study on Escherichia coli‐ produced GOXv247 protein did not show adverse effects in mice, at the gavage doses up to 1000 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day. Taking into account its previous assessment on EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2009‐75 and the outcome of the 28‐day toxicity study in mice with the GOXv247 protein provided in this mandate, the GMO Panel, based on a weight of evidence approach, concludes that food and feed containing, consisting and produced from genetically modified oilseed rape Ms8 × Rf3 × GT73 and its sub combinations Ms8 × GT73 and Rf3 × GT73, are as safe as its conventional counterpart, according to the scope as defined in the application EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2009‐75.

Abstract Maize MZIR098 was developed to confer tolerance to glufosinate‐ammonium‐containing herbicides and resistance to certain coleopteran pests. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics tested between maize MZIR098 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for neutral detergent fibre (NDF) in grains, which does not raise nutritional and safety concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the eCry3.1Ab, mCry3A and PAT proteins as expressed in maize MZIR098, and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of maize MZIR098. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize MZIR098 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MZIR098 is as safe as the conventional counterpart and non‐GM maize reference varieties tested, and no post‐market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize MZIR098 grains into the environment, maize MZIR098 would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize MZIR098. In conclusion, the GMO Panel considers that maize MZIR098, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the non‐GM maize reference varieties tested with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Abstract Soybean MON 87705 × MON 87708 × MON 89788 (three‐event stack soybean) was produced by conventional crossing to combine three single soybean events: MON 87705, MON 87708 and MON 89788. This combination is intended to alter the fatty acid profile in the seed (in particular increasing the levels of oleic acid) and tolerance to glyphosate‐based and dicamba herbicides. The Genetically Modified Organisms Panel previously assessed the three single soybean events and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single soybean events, leading to modification of the original conclusions on their safety have been 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 soybean events and of the newly expressed proteins in the three‐event stack soybean does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. In the case of accidental release of viable three‐event stack soybean seeds into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and the reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of soybean MON 87705 × MON 87708 × MON 89788. Considering the altered fatty acid profile of the three‐event stack soybean, a proposal for post‐market monitoring needs to be provided by the applicant. The GMO Panel notes that in the context of this application EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2015‐126 the applicant did not provide a 90‐day study on MON 87705 soybean in line with the applicable legal requirements. Therefore, the GMO Panel is not in the position to finalise the risk assessment of soybean MON 87705 × MON 87708 × MON 89788 under the current regulatory frame.

Abstract Oilseed rape MS11 has been developed to confer male sterility and tolerance to glufosinate‐ammonium‐containing herbicides. Based on the information provided in the application and in line with the scope of application EFSA‐GMO‐BE‐2016‐138, the genetically modified organism (GMO) Panel concludes that the molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic characteristics tested between oilseed rape MS11 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment. No conclusions can be drawn for the compositional analysis due to the lack of an appropriate compositional data set. No toxicological or allergenicity concerns are identified for the Barnase, Barstar and PAT/bar proteins expressed in oilseed rape MS11. Owing to the incompleteness of the compositional analysis, the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment of oilseed rape MS11 cannot be completed. In the case of accidental release of viable oilseed rape MS11 seeds into the environment, oilseed rape MS11 would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the scope of the application. Since oilseed rape MS11 is designed to be used only for the production of hybrid seed, it is not expected to be commercialised as a stand‐alone product for food/feed uses. Thus, seeds harvested from oilseed rape MS11 are not expected to enter the food/feed chain, except accidentally. In this context, the GMO Panel notes that, oilseed rape MS11 would not pose risk to humans and animals, while the scale of environmental exposure will be substantially reduced compared to a stand‐alone product.

Abstract 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.

Abstract The scope of application EFSA‐GMO‐DE‐2012‐111 is for food and feed uses, import and processing of genetically modified (GM) soybean SYHT0H2 in the European Union. Soybean SYHT0H2 was developed to confer tolerance to the herbicidal active substances mesotrione and other p‐hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD)‐inhibiting herbicides and glufosinate ammonium. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues except for sequence similarity of AvHPPD‐03 to bacterial haemolysins that was considered in food/feed safety assessment. The outcome of the comparative analysis (agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics) did not need further assessment except for the changes in seed levels of α‐tocopherol and γ‐tocopherol that were assessed for food and feed relevance. The GMO Panel does not identify toxicological and allergenicity concerns for the AvHPPD‐03 and PAT proteins expressed in soybean SYHT0H2 and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of soybean SYHT0H2. The nutritional impact of food/feed from soybean SYHT0H2 is expected to be the same as that of food/feed from the conventional counterpart and commercial non‐GM soybean reference varieties. The GMO Panel concludes that soybean SYHT0H2 is as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to the conventional counterpart and the tested non‐GM soybean reference varieties, and no post‐market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable soybean SYHT0H2 grains into the environment, soybean SYHT0H2 would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of soybean SYHT0H2. In conclusion, the GMO Panel considers that soybean SYHT0H2, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non‐GM soybean reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Genome editing is now widely used in plant science for both basic research and molecular crop breeding. The clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) technology, through its precision, high efficiency and versatility, allows for editing of many sites in plant genomes. This system has been highly successful to produce knock-out mutants through the introduction of frameshift mutations due to error-prone repair pathways. Nevertheless, recent new CRISPR-based technologies such as base editing and prime editing can generate precise and on demand nucleotide conversion, allowing for fine-tuning of protein function and generating gain-of-function mutants. However, genome editing through CRISPR systems still have some drawbacks and limitations, such as the PAM restriction and the need for more diversity in CRISPR tools to mediate different simultaneous catalytic activities. In this study, we successfully used the CRISPR-Cas9 system from Staphylococcus aureus (SaCas9) for the introduction of frameshift mutations in the tetraploid genome of the cultivated potato (Solanum tuberosum). We also developed a S. aureus-cytosine base editor that mediate nucleotide conversions, allowing for precise modification of specific residues or regulatory elements in potato. Our proof-of-concept in potato expand the plant dicot CRISPR toolbox for biotechnology and precision breeding applications.

Digital dietary assessment devices could help overcome the limitations of traditional tools to assess dietary intake in clinical and/or epidemiological studies. We evaluated the accuracy of the automated dietary app MyFoodRepo (MFR) against controlled reference values from weighted food diaries (WFD). MFR’s capability to identify, classify and analyze the content of 189 different records was assessed using Cohen and uniform kappa coefficients and linear regressions. MFR identified 98.0% ± 1.5 of all edible components and was not affected by increasing numbers of ingredients. Linear regression analysis showed wide limits of agreement between MFR and WFD methods to estimate energy, carbohydrates, fat, proteins, fiber and alcohol contents of all records and a constant overestimation of proteins, likely reflecting the overestimation of portion sizes for meat, fish and seafood. The MFR mean portion size error was 9.2% ± 48.1 with individual errors ranging between −88.5% and +242.5% compared to true values. Beverages were impacted by the app’s difficulty in correctly identifying the nature of liquids (41.9% ± 17.7 of composed beverages correctly classified). Fair estimations of portion size by MFR, along with its strong segmentation and classification capabilities, resulted in a generally good agreement between MFR and WFD which would be suited for the identification of dietary patterns, eating habits and regime types.

Clinical difficulties in predicting systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) renal flares are still encountered. Biological markers such as autoantibodies (aAbs) may be of major interest for clinicians in the follow-up of SLE patients. The aim of our study was to investigate the clinical utility of one of these biological markers, anti-C1q aAbs, in predicting renal flares of SLE nephritis in comparison with the ‘gold standard’ anti-double stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) aAbs. Anti-C1q aAbs and anti-dsDNA aAbs were analysed through a longitudinal retrospective study of 23 SLE patients presenting with one or more renal flares. Anti-C1q and/or antidsDNA aAbs were found in 20 (87%) of 23 patients, of whom 16 (69%) displayed both. Thirty-three renal flares occurred during the course of the study, and anti-C1q aAbs and antidsDNA aAbs were positive in 25 (76%) and 24 (73%) of these flares respectively. The sensitivity of anti-C1q and/or anti-dsDNA aAbs in predicting renal flares reached 85%. The specificity of anti-C1q aAbs was 84%, of anti-dsDNA aAbs 77% and of both aAbs 97%. Positive and negative predictive values were as follows: 56% and 70% for anti-C1q aAbs, 53% and 72% for anti-dsDNA aAbs. The combination of both aAbs had the highest positive predictive value (69%), whereas absence of both aAbs was associated with the highest negative predictive value (74%). In conclusion, our results confirm that anti-C1q aAbs are present in a significant percentage of SLE patients with active renal involvement, suggesting that these aAbs could be a useful additional marker. The presence of anti-C1q and anti-dsDNA aAbs was associated with a high risk of renal flare, whereas the absence of both aAbs excluded such an event. These data confirm that systematic detection of anti-C1q and anti-dsDNA aAbs is of interest for the follow-up in SLE patients with renal involvement. Lupus (2011) 20, 28—34. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This review of litterature concerns the different autoantibodies directed against membrane receptors and ion channels. The target antigens, the associated pathologies, the pathogenesis and the methods of detection of these autoantibodies will be addressed. Some of these autoantibodies are thought to be closely related to the autoimmune disease whereas for some others their pathogenesis role is still unclear. Overall, the roles of antibodies are different between diseases, but the presence of such autoantibodies support the basis of intervening immunotherapy, antibody titers predicted the activity of the diseases and some of them are very specific and become the useful markers for the diagnosis. Some autoantibodies are detected routinely as the antiacetylcholine receptor, voltage-gated potassium and calcium channels autoantibodies whereas most of them are detected very rarely and only by specialized laboratories. This review will be divided in three parts with the following classification: the first group of autoantibodies directed against membrane receptors included receptors with an enzymatic activity (mostly tyrosine kinase) with one transmembrane domain, receptors associated to G protein with seven transmembrane domains, ion channels and receptors associated to the membrane by the glycosyl phosphatidyl inositol and the second group of intracellular receptor autoantibodies directed to the estrogens, androgens, lamin and kinesin receptors. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: This review of literature concerns the different autoantibodies directed against membrane receptors and ion channels. The target antigens, the associated pathologies, the pathogenesis and the methods of detection of these autoantibodies will be addressed. Some of these autoantibodies are thought to be closely related to the auto-immune disease whereas for some others their pathogenesis role is still unclear. Overall, the roles of antibodies are different between diseases, but the presence of such autoantibodies support the basis of intervening immunotherapy, antibody titers predicted the activity of the diseases and some of them are very specific and become the useful markers for the diagnosis. Some autoantibodies are detected routinely as the antiacetylcholine receptor, voltage-gated potassium and calcium channels autoantibodies whereas most of them are detected very rarely and only by specialized laboratories. This review will be divided in three parts with the following classification: the first group of autoantibodies directed against membrane receptors included receptors with an enzymatic activity (mostly tyrosine kinase) with one transmembrane domain, receptors associated to G protein with seven transmembrane domains, ion channels and receptors associated to the membrane by the glycosylphosphatidylinositol and the second group of intracellular receptor autoantibodies directed to the estrogens, androgens, lamin and kinesin receptors. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

In the first half of the 2nd Century C.E., Latin Apologists Tertullian and Minucius Felix wrote short catalogues of various things in which the shape of the Cross can allegedly be discovered. Both excerpts seem to complement each other in building an architecture not of knowledge but of belief and ritual process. Now this rhetoric building can be compared to an architecture in trompe-l’oeil style. This style might not only be due to the fancy of Christian writers, nor to the polemics with the Polytheists, but would better be seen as a way of shaping the imagination. Modern philosopher Thomas Hobbes’s criticism of idolatry highlights this process as well as it shows how easily it could be started with a catalogue.

To assess the specificity of autoantibodies (aAbs) directed against the ribosomal P-proteins (RPPaAbs) in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and to investigate aAbs directed to other ribosomal proteins, 100 SLE, 100 rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 25 thyroiditis and 20 blood-donors were analyzed in a comparative study using an immunoblotting technique. Forty-eight percent of SLE sera contained aAbs directed against the ribosomal proteins of the 60 S subunit compared to 9% for RA, 5% for blood donors and 0% for thyroiditis. RPPaAbs were only found in SLE (25%) and aAbs directed to a 31 kDa and/or a 28 kDa protein of the 60 S subunit were found with a statistically higher frequency for SLE compared to RA ( p <0.0001). aAbs directed to proteins of the 40 S subunit were present in 63% of the SLE sera compared to 42% for RA, 4% for thyroiditis and 5% for blood donors. The number of positive sera was not statistically different between SLE and RA but a much more intense reactivity was observed for SLE sera. These data shows that the aAbs against the ribosomal proteins, especially the P-proteins along with the 28 and 31 kDa proteins of the 60 S subunit proteins, can be considered as useful biological markers for the diagnosis of SLE in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Following the submission of application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐013 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Syngenta Crop Protection NV/SA, the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) 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 genetically modified maize MIR604, 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 MIR604 considered for renewal is identical to the corrected sequence of the originally assessed event, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐013 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize MIR604.

Abstract Soybean MON 87751 × MON 87701 × MON 87708 × MON 89788 (four‐event stack soybean) was produced by conventional crossing to combine four single events: MON 87751, MON 87701, MON 87708 and MON 89788. The GMO Panel previously assessed the four single events and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single events have been identified that would lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological and allergenicity assessment indicate that the combination of the single soybean events and of the newly expressed proteins in the four‐event stack soybean does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack soybean, as described in this application, is as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to the non‐GM comparator and the non‐GM reference varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of viable seeds of the four‐event stack soybean into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the four‐event stack soybean. Post‐market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack soybean is as safe as the non‐GM comparator and the tested non‐GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Abstract Following the submission of application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐015 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer Agriculture BVBA, the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO Panel) 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 genetically modified maize MON 89034, 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 89034 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‐015 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize MON 89034.

Abstract Maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × MON 87411 (four‐event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine four single events: MON 87427, MON 89034, MIR162 and MON 87411. The genetically modified organism (GMO) Panel previously assessed the four single maize events and four of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the four 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 and dsRNA in the four‐event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐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 four‐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 six 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 four‐event stack maize. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the four‐event stack maize. Post‐market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐event stack maize and its subcombinations are as safe as its non‐GM comparator and tested non‐GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the GMO Panel assessed additional information related to the application for authorisation of food and feed containing, consisting of and produced from genetically modified (GM) maize 3272 (EFSA‐GMO‐UK‐2006‐34). The applicant conducted new agronomic, phenotypic and compositional analysis studies on maize 3272 and assessed the allergenic potential of AMY797E protein, addressing elements that remained inconclusive from previous EFSA opinion issued in 2013. The GMO Panel is of the opinion that the agronomic and phenotypic characteristics as well as forage and grain composition of maize 3272 do not give rise to food and feed safety, and nutritional concerns when compared to non‐GM maize. Considering the scope of this application and the characteristics of the trait introduced in this GM maize, the effect of processing and potential safety implications of specific food or feed products remain to be further investigated. Regarding the allergenic potential of AMY797E protein and considering all possible food and feed uses of maize 3272, the Panel concludes that the information provided does not fully address the concerns previously raised by the Panel in 2013. Owing to the nature and the knowledge available on this protein family, it is still unclear whether under specific circumstances the alpha‐amylase AMY797E has the capacity to sensitise certain individuals and to cause adverse effects. To further support the safety of specific products of maize 3272, the applicant provided thorough information relevant for the allergenicity assessment of dried distiller grains with solubles (DDGS), which is the main product of interest for importation into the EU. Having considered the information provided on this product, the Panel is of the opinion that under the specific conditions of use described by the applicant, DDGS produced from maize 3272 does not raise concerns when compared to DDGS from non‐GM maize.

Abstract 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.

Abstract Maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × NK603 (four‐event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine four single events: MON 87427, MON 89034, MIR162 and NK603. The GMO Panel previously assessed the four single maize events and four of the subcombinations did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the four 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 four‐event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐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 four‐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 six 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 four‐event stack maize. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the four‐event stack maize. Post‐market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the four‐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.

Abstract Soybean MON 87708 × MON 89788 × A5547‐127 (three‐event stack soybean) was produced by conventional crossing to combine three single events: MON 87708, MON 89788 and A5547‐127. The GMO Panel previously assessed the three single events and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single events, leading to modification of the original conclusions on their safety have been 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 soybean events and of the newly expressed proteins in the three‐event stack soybean does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the three‐event stack soybean, as described in this application, is as safe as and nutritionally equivalent to its conventional counterpart and the non‐GM reference varieties tested. The nutritional impact of food/feed derived from the three‐event stack soybean is expected to be the same as that of food/feed derived from the conventional counterpart and non‐GM reference varieties. In the case of accidental release of viable seeds of the three‐event stack soybean into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the three‐event stack soybean. Post‐market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the three‐event stack soybean is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non‐GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

The XPF-ERCC1 complex, a highly conserved structure-specific endonuclease, functions in multiple DNA repair pathways that are pivotal for maintaining genome stability, including nucleotide excision repair, interstrand crosslink repair, and homologous recombination. XPF-ERCC1 incises double-stranded DNA at double-strand/single-strand junctions, making it an ideal enzyme for processing DNA structures that contain partially unwound strands. Here, we have examined the role of the XPF-ERCC1 complex in the model bryophyte Physcomitrella patens which exhibits uniquely high gene targeting frequencies. We undertook targeted knockout of the Physcomitrella ERCC1 and XPF genes. Mutant analysis shows that the endonuclease complex is essential for resistance to UV-B and to the alkylating agent MMS, and contributes to the maintenance of genome integrity but is also involved in gene targeting in this model plant. Using different constructs we determine whether the function of the XPF-ERCC1 endonuclease complex in gene targeting was removal of 3′ non-homologous termini, similar to SSA, or processing of looped-out heteroduplex intermediates. Interestingly, our data suggest a role of the endonuclease in both pathways and have implications for the mechanism of targeted gene replacement in plants and its specificities compared to yeast and mammalian cells.

Abstract Maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × 1507 × 5307 × GA21 (six‐event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine six single events: Bt11, MIR162, MIR604, 1507, 5307 and GA21. The GMO Panel previously assessed the six single events and 22 of their combinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the maize single events or their 22 combinations that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety have been 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 six–event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the six‐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 six‐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 34 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 six‐event stack maize. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the six‐event stack maize. Post‐market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the six‐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.