Search

Genetically modified Komagataella phaffii strain MXY0541 was developed to produce soy leghemoglobin by introducing the LGB2 coding sequence encoding leghemoglobin from soybean ( Glycine max ). The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not raise any safety concerns. The safety of soy leghemoglobin as a food additive has already been assessed by the EFSA FAF Panel (EFSA-Q-2022-00031). The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of soy leghemoglobin protein as expressed in K. phaffii , and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change its overall allergenicity. The GMO Panel concludes that the LegH Prep derived from genetically modified K. phaffii strain MXY0541 is safe for human consumption with regard to the effects of the genetic modification. No environmental impact from the use of this product is expected regarding the recombinant DNA sequences possibly remaining in the product. The GMO Panel concludes that LegH Prep from genetically modified K. phaffii strain MXY0541 is safe with respect to potential effects on human health and the environment at the proposed use and use level as far as the impact of the genetic modification is concerned. The overall conclusion is that the genetic modification does not lead to safety issues., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Genetically modified maize DP51291 was developed to confer control against susceptible corn rootworm pests and tolerance to glufosinate-containing herbicide; these properties were achieved by introducing the ipd072Aa, pmi and mo-pat expression cassettes. 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 DP51291 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for phosphorus in forage and manganese, proline, oleic acid (C18:1) and linoleic acid (C18:2) in grain, which do not raise safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the IPD072Aa, PAT and PMI proteins as expressed in maize DP51291 and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of maize DP51291. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize DP51291 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP51291 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and non-GM maize varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize DP51291 grains 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 maize DP51291. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP51291 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM maize varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Genetically modified maize MON 95275 was developed to confer protection to certain coleopteran species. These properties were achieved by introducing the mpp75Aa1.1 , vpb4Da2 and DvSnf7 expression cassettes. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses reveal similarity to known toxins, which was further assessed. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics tested between maize MON 95275 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the Mpp75Aa1.1 and Vpb4Da2 proteins and the DvSnf7 dsRNA and derived siRNAs as expressed in maize MON 95275 and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of maize MON 95275. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize MON 95275 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 95275 is as safe as the conventional counterpart and non-GM maize varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of maize MON 95275 material 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 maize MON 95275. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 95275 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM maize varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

EFSA was requested by the European Commission (in accordance with Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002) to provide a scientific opinion on the application of new developments in biotechnology (new genomic techniques, NGTs) to viable microorganisms and products of category 4 to be released into the environment or placed on the market as or in food and feed, and to non-viable products of category 3 to be placed on the market as or in food and feed. A horizon scanning exercise identified a variety of products containing microorganisms obtained with NGTs (NGT-Ms), falling within the remit of EFSA, that are expected to be placed on the (EU) market in the next 10 years. No novel potential hazards/risks from NGT-Ms were identified as compared to those obtained by established genomic techniques (EGTs), or by conventional mutagenesis. Due to the higher efficiency, specificity and predictability of NGTs, the hazards related to the changes in the genome are likely to be less frequent in NGT-Ms than those modified by EGTs and conventional mutagenesis. It is concluded that EFSA guidances are 'partially applicable', therefore on a case-by-case basis for specific NGT-Ms, fewer requirements may be needed. Some of the EFSA guidances are 'not sufficient' and updates are recommended. Because possible hazards relate to genotypic and phenotypic changes introduced and not to the method used for the modification, it is recommended that any new guidance should take a consistent risk assessment approach for strains/products derived from or produced with microorganisms obtained with conventional mutagenesis, EGTs or NGTs., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

As part of the risk assessment (RA) requirements for genetically modified (GM) plants, according to Regulation (EU) No 503/2013 and the EFSA guidance on the RA of food and feed from GM plants (EFSA GMO Panel 2011), applicants need to perform a molecular characterisation of the DNA sequences inserted in the GM plant genome. This Technical Note to the applicants puts together requirements and recommendations for the quality assessment of the methodology, analysis and reporting when DNA sequencing is used for the molecular characterisation of GM plants. In particular, it applies to the use of Sanger sequencing and next-generation sequencing for the characterisation of the inserted genetic material and its flanking regions at each insertion site, the determination of the copy number of all detectable inserts and the analysis of the genetic stability of the inserts. This updated document replaces the EFSA 2018 Technical Note and reflects the current knowledge in scientific-technical methods for generating and verifying, in a standardised manner, DNA sequencing data in the context of RA of GM plants. It does not take into consideration the verification and validation of the detection method which remains under the remit of the Joint Research Centre (JRC)., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Genetically modified maize DP202216 was developed to confer tolerance to glufosinate-ammonium-containing herbicides and to provide an opportunity for yield enhancement under field conditions. These properties were achieved by introducing the mo-pat and zmm28 expression cassettes. 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 DP202216 and its comparator needs further assessment, except for the levels of stearic acid (C18:0), which do not raise nutritional and safety concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the PAT and ZMM28 proteins as expressed in maize DP202216, and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of maize DP202216. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize DP202216 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP202216 is as safe as the comparator and non-GM reference varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize DP202216 grains 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 maize DP202216. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP202216 is as safe as its comparator and the tested non-GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Genetically modified maize DP23211 was developed to confer control of certain coleopteran pests and tolerance to glufosinate-containing herbicide. These properties were achieved by introducing the pmi , mo-pat , ipd072Aa and DvSSJ1 expression cassettes. 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 DP23211 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for those in levels of histidine, phenylalanine, magnesium, phosphorus and folic acid in grain, which do not raise safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the IPD072Aa, PAT and PMI proteins and the DvSSJ1 dsRNA and derived siRNAs newly expressed in maize DP23211, and finds no evidence that the genetic modification impacts the overall safety of maize DP23211. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize DP23211 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. Therefore, no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize DP23211 grains 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 maize DP23211. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP23211 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., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Genetically modified maize DP915635 was developed to confer tolerance to glufosinate herbicide and resistance to corn rootworm pests. These properties were achieved by introducing the ipd079Ea, mo-pat and pmi expression cassettes. 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 DP915635 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for the levels of crude protein in forage, which does not raise nutritional and safety concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the IPD079Ea, PAT and PMI proteins expressed in maize DP915635. The GMO Panel finds no evidence that the genetic modification impacts the overall safety of maize DP915635. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize DP915635 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP915635 is as safe as the conventional counterpart and non-GM maize varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize DP915635 grains 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 maize DP915635. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP915635 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM maize varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Genetically modified maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × MON 89034 × 5307 × GA21 was developed by crossing to combine six single events: Bt11, MIR162, MIR604, MON 89034, 5307 and GA21, the GMO Panel previously assessed the 6 single maize events and 27 out of the 56 possible subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the assessed subcombinations were identified that could 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, 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 six-event stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as the conventional counterpart and non-GM maize varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable six-event stack maize grains into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in 29 of the maize subcombinations not previously assessed and covered by the scope of this application and concludes that these are expected to be as safe as 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 maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × MON 89034 × 5307 × GA21. The GMO Panel concludes that six-event stack maize and the 30 subcombinations covered by the scope of the application are as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM maize varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Genetically modified maize GA21 × T25 was developed by crossing to combine two single events: GA21 and T25. The GMO Panel previously assessed the two single maize events and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events were identified that could 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, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in maize GA21 × T25 does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that maize GA21 × T25, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the non-GM reference varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food and feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize GA21 × T25 grains 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 maize GA21 × T25. Post-market monitoring of food and feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that maize GA21 × T25 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the non-GM reference varieties tested, with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment., (© 2023 Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority.)

Maize MON 87429 was developed to confer tolerance to dicamba, glufosinate, quizalofop and 2,4-D herbicides. 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 MON 87429 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for the levels of phytic acid in grains, which do not raise nutritional and safety concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the DMO, PAT, FT_T and CP4 EPSPS proteins as expressed in maize MON 87429. The GMO Panel finds no evidence that the genetic modification impacts the overall safety of maize MON 87429. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize MON 87429 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 87429 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 MON 87429 grains 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 maize MON 87429. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 87429, as described in this application, is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM maize reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment., (© 2022 Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority.)

Genetically modified maize MON 95379 was developed to confer insect protection against certain lepidopteran species. These properties were achieved by introducing the cry1B.868 and cry1Da_7 expression cassettes. 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 MON 95379 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the Cry1B.868 and Cry1Da_7 proteins as expressed in maize MON 95379. The GMO Panel finds no evidence that the genetic modification impacts the overall safety of maize MON 95379. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize MON 95379 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. Therefore, no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize MON 95379 grains 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 maize MON 95379. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 95379 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non-GM maize varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment., (© 2022 Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority.)

Genetically modified maize DP4114 × MON 89034 × MON 87411 × DAS-40278-9 was developed by crossing to combine four single events: DP4114, MON 89034, MON 87411 and DAS-40278-9. The GMO Panel previously assessed the four single maize events and two of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the assessed subcombinations were identified that could 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, 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. Therefore, no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable four-event stack maize grains into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in eight of the 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 maize DP4114 × MON 89034 × MON 87411 × DAS-40278-9. 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 maize varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment., (© 2022 Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority.)

Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-025 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Syngenta Crop Protection NV/SA, 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 genetically modified maize MIR162, 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. The GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-025 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize MIR162., (© 2022 Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority.)

Genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MIR162 × NK603 × DAS-40278-9 was developed by crossing to combine five single events: MON 89034, 1507, MIR162, NK603 and DAS-40278-9. The GMO Panel previously assessed the five single maize events and 16 of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the assessed subcombinations were identified that could lead to the modification of the original conclusions on their safety. 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 five-event stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as the non-GM comparator and non-GM maize varieties tested. In the case of accidental release of viable five-event stack maize grains into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in nine of the 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 five-event stack maize. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MIR162 × NK603 × DAS-40278-9. 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 maize varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment., (© 2022 Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority.)

The GMO Panel has previously assessed genetically modified (GM) cotton DAS-24236-5 × DAS-21Ø23-5 and concluded that it is as safe as its conventional counterpart and other appropriate comparators with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment in the context of its intended uses. On 17 November 2020, the European Commission requested EFSA to evaluate new DNA sequence information and updated bioinformatics data for cotton DAS-24236-5 × DAS-21Ø23-5 and to indicate whether the conclusions of the GMO Panel on the previously assessed cotton DAS-24236-5 × DAS-21Ø23-5 remain valid. The new sequence data of DAS-24236-5 showed the change of one nucleotide that results in one amino acid substitution, in the newly expressed Cry1F (synpro_L620Q) compared to the sequence originally reported. The GMO Panel concludes that this amino acid substitution in the protein is a mutation. Nonetheless with the exception of the bioinformatics analysis, the studies performed for the risk assessment of Cry1F in cotton DAS-24236-5 × DAS-21Ø23-5 remain valid. In addition, the new sequencing data showed a change in one nucleotide in the 5' flanking region of DAS-21Ø23-5 compared to the original sequence reported on the stack cotton DAS-24236-5 × DAS-21Ø23-5. The bioinformatic analyses of the newly sequenced DAS-21Ø23-5 event in the stack DAS-24236-5 × DAS-21Ø23-5 shows that the nucleotide difference is in the 5' flanking region outside the ORFs that span the 5' junction and is therefore not considered further in the safety assessment. Based on the information provided, the GMO Panel concludes that the corrected sequence does not give rise to any safety concerns, and therefore, the original risk assessment of cotton DAS-24236-5 × DAS-21Ø23-5 remains valid., (© 2022 Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority.)

Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-020 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from BASF Agricultural Solutions Seed US LLC, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the EFSA 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 soybean A5547-127, 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, 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. The GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-020 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on soybean A5547-127., (© 2022 Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority.)

Maize DP4114 × MON 810 × MIR604 × NK603 (four-event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine four single events: DP4114, MON 810, MIR604 and NK603. The GMO Panel previously assessed the four single maize events and one of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the assessed subcombination were identified that could 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, 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, is as safe as the comparator and the selected non-GM reference varieties. 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 nine of the maize subcombinations not previously assessed and concludes that these are expected to be as safe as the single events, the previously assessed subcombination and the four-event stack maize. Post-market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the four-event stack maize. The GMO Panel concludes that the four-event stack maize and its subcombinations are as safe as the non-GM comparator and the selected non-GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment., (© 2022 Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority.)

Maize NK603 × T25 × DAS-40278-9 (three-event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine three single events: NK603, T25 and DAS-40278-9. The GMO Panel previously assessed the three single maize events and two of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the two subcombinations were identified that could 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, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in the three-event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel concludes that the three-event stack maize, as described in this application, is as safe as the non-GM comparator and the selected non-GM reference varieties. In the case of accidental release of viable grains of the three-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 one of the 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 three-event stack maize. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of the three-event stack maize. Post-market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the three-event stack maize and its subcombinations are as safe as the non-GM comparator and the selected non-GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment., (© 2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Soybean GMB151 was developed to confer tolerance to 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD) inhibitor herbicides and resistance to nematodes. 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 soybean GMB151 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for palmitic acid and heptadecenoic acid in seeds and carbohydrate and crude protein in forage, which does not raise nutritional and safety concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the HPPD-4 and Cry14Ab-1 proteins as expressed in soybean GMB151, and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of soybean GMB151. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from soybean GMB151 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that soybean GMB151 is as safe as the conventional counterpart and non-GM soybean reference varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable soybean GMB151 seeds 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 soybean GMB151. The GMO Panel concludes that soybean GMB151 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., (© 2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Next Generation Sequencing technologies significantly impact the field of Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) detection and monitoring, with immediate uses in diagnosis and risk assessment. For this application and in general, considerable challenges remain in demonstrating sufficient trust to act upon the meaningful information produced from raw data, partly because of the reliance on bioinformatics pipelines, which can produce different results and therefore lead to different interpretations. With the constant evolution of the field, it is difficult to identify, harmonise and recommend specific methods for large-scale implementations over time. In this article, we propose to address this challenge through establishing a transparent, performance-based, evaluation approach to provide flexibility in the bioinformatics tools of choice, while demonstrating proficiency in meeting common performance standards. The approach is two-fold: first, a community-driven effort to establish and maintain "live" (dynamic) benchmarking platforms to provide relevant performance metrics, based on different use-cases, that would evolve together with the AMR field; second, agreed and defined datasets to allow the pipelines' implementation, validation, and quality-control over time. Following previous discussions on the main challenges linked to this approach, we provide concrete recommendations and future steps, related to different aspects of the design of benchmarks, such as the selection and the characteristics of the datasets (quality, choice of pathogens and resistances, etc.), the evaluation criteria of the pipelines, and the way these resources should be deployed in the community., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2021 Petrillo M et al.)

Next Generation Sequencing technologies significantly impact the field of Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) detection and monitoring, with immediate uses in diagnosis and risk assessment. For this application and in general, considerable challenges remain in demonstrating sufficient trust to act upon the meaningful information produced from raw data, partly because of the reliance on bioinformatics pipelines, which can produce different results and therefore lead to different interpretations. With the constant evolution of the field, it is difficult to identify, harmonise and recommend specific methods for large-scale implementations over time. In this article, we propose to address this challenge through establishing a transparent, performance-based, evaluation approach to provide flexibility in the bioinformatics tools of choice, while demonstrating proficiency in meeting common performance standards. The approach is two-fold: first, a community-driven effort to establish and maintain "live" (dynamic) benchmarking platforms to provide relevant performance metrics, based on different use-cases, that would evolve together with the AMR field; second, agreed and defined datasets to allow the pipelines' implementation, validation, and quality-control over time. Following previous discussions on the main challenges linked to this approach, we provide concrete recommendations and future steps, related to different aspects of the design of benchmarks, such as the selection and the characteristics of the datasets (quality, choice of pathogens and resistances, etc.), the evaluation criteria of the pipelines, and the way these resources should be deployed in the community., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2022 Petrillo M et al.)

Maize MON 87427 × MON 87460 × MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 87411 × 59122 (six-event stack maize) was produced by conventional crossing to combine six single events: MON 87427, MON 87460, MON 89034, 1507, MON 87411 and 59122. The GMO Panel previously assessed the six single maize events and 17 of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the 17 subcombinations were identified that could 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, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins and dsRNA 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 its non-GM comparator and the selected non-GM reference varieties. 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 39 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 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 the non-GM comparator and the selected non-GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment., (© 2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Gadoids are a group of fish with historical importance in the fishing industry. The high demand for cod is one of the reasons why cod products are often mislabelled, and numerous observations have been made on the replacement of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) by cheaper species or its illegal capture in contravention of fish quotas. Fish species identification is traditionally based on morphological features, but this may be difficult in case of heat-treated or processed products, or where the species look similar, as in the Gadoid group. DNA-based approaches (using either nuclear or mitochondrial DNA) are most commonly used in this case, due to their high specificity and to the high resilience of the target molecules to food processing techniques. In this article, we identified, using an automated screening approach, novel barcode regions and their associated primers in the nuclear genome, to be used for the efficient identification of Gadoids. The barcode regions were tested on official and commercial samples, raw or mildly treated products, like frozen, or salted, as well as pre-cooked complex mixtures and processed samples, using next-generation sequencing (NGS) technique. The method proposed could complement existing fish identification strategies in establishing an efficient framework to detect and prevent frauds along the food chain.

Knowledge of the number of DNA sequences targeted by the taxon-specific reference assays is essential for correct GM quantification and is key to the harmonisation of measurement results. In the present study droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) was used to determine the number of DNA target copies of taxon-specific assays validated for real-time PCR for the four main genetically modified (GM) crops. The transferability of experimental conditions from real-time PCR to ddPCR was also explored, as well as the effect of DNA digestion. The results of this study indicate that for each crop at least one taxon-specific assay can be identified as having a single DNA target. A short list of taxon-specific reference assays is proposed as best candidates for the relative quantification of GM events for soybean, maize, cotton and oilseed rape. The investigated assays could be in most cases transferred to ddPCR without further optimisation. The use of DNA digestion did not improve ddPCR characteristics such as rain and resolution at the conditions tested.

Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) technologies are expected to play a crucial role in the surveillance of infectious diseases, with their unprecedented capabilities for the characterisation of genetic information underlying the virulence and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) properties of microorganisms.  In the implementation of any novel technology for regulatory purposes, important considerations such as harmonisation, validation and quality assurance need to be addressed.  NGS technologies pose unique challenges in these regards, in part due to their reliance on bioinformatics for the processing and proper interpretation of the data produced.  Well-designed benchmark resources are thus needed to evaluate, validate and ensure continued quality control over the bioinformatics component of the process.  This concept was explored as part of a workshop on "Next-generation sequencing technologies and antimicrobial resistance" held October 4-5 2017.   Challenges involved in the development of such a benchmark resource, with a specific focus on identifying the molecular determinants of AMR, were identified. For each of the challenges, sets of unsolved questions that will need to be tackled for them to be properly addressed were compiled. These take into consideration the requirement for monitoring of AMR bacteria in humans, animals, food and the environment, which is aligned with the principles of a "One Health" approach., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JOG receives some research funding from Oxford Nanopore Technologies. ER is consultant for Pathoquest.

Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) technologies are expected to play a crucial role in the surveillance of infectious diseases, with their unprecedented capabilities for the characterisation of genetic information underlying the virulence and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) properties of microorganisms.  In the implementation of any novel technology for regulatory purposes, important considerations such as harmonisation, validation and quality assurance need to be addressed.  NGS technologies pose unique challenges in these regards, in part due to their reliance on bioinformatics for the processing and proper interpretation of the data produced.  Well-designed benchmark resources are thus needed to evaluate, validate and ensure continued quality control over the bioinformatics component of the process.  This concept was explored as part of a workshop on "Next-generation sequencing technologies and antimicrobial resistance" held October 4-5 2017.   Challenges involved in the development of such a benchmark resource, with a specific focus on identifying the molecular determinants of AMR, were identified. For each of the challenges, sets of unsolved questions that will need to be tackled for them to be properly addressed were compiled. These take into consideration the requirement for monitoring of AMR bacteria in humans, animals, food and the environment, which is aligned with the principles of a "One Health" approach., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JOG receives some research funding from Oxford Nanopore Technologies. ER is consultant for Pathoquest.

The development of an efficient seafood traceability framework is crucial for the management of sustainable fisheries and the monitoring of potential substitution fraud across the food chain. Recent studies have shown the potential of DNA barcoding methods in this framework, with most of the efforts focusing on using mitochondrial targets such as the cytochrome oxidase 1 and cytochrome b genes. In this article, we show the identification of novel targets in the nuclear genome, and their associated primers, to be used for the efficient identification of flatfishes of the Pleuronectidae family. In addition, different in silico methods are described to generate a dataset of barcode reference sequences from the ever-growing wealth of publicly available sequence information, replacing, where possible, labour-intensive laboratory work. The short amplicon lengths render the analysis of these new barcode target regions ideally suited to next-generation sequencing techniques, allowing characterisation of multiple fish species in mixed and processed samples. Their location in the nucleus also improves currently used methods by allowing the identification of hybrid individuals.

Monitoring of the food chain to fight fraud and protect consumer health relies on the availability of methods to correctly identify the species present in samples, for which DNA barcoding is a promising candidate. The nuclear genome is a rich potential source of barcode targets, but has been relatively unexploited until now. Here, we show the development and use of a bioinformatics pipeline that processes available genome sequences to automatically screen large numbers of input candidates, identifies novel nuclear barcode targets and designs associated primer pairs, according to a specific set of requirements. We applied this pipeline to identify novel barcodes for plant species, a kingdom for which the currently available solutions are known to be insufficient. We tested one of the identified primer pairs and show its capability to correctly identify the plant species in simple and complex samples, validating the output of our approach.

The cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops has raised numerous concerns in the European Union and other parts of the world about their environmental and economic impact. Especially outcrossing of genetically modified organisms (GMO) was from the beginning a critical issue as airborne pollen has been considered an important way of GMO dispersal. Here, we investigate the use of airborne pollen sampling combined with microscopic analysis and molecular PCR analysis as an approach to monitor GM maize cultivations in a specific area. Field trial experiments in the European Union and South America demonstrated the applicability of the approach under different climate conditions, in rural and semi-urban environment, even at very low levels of airborne pollen. The study documents in detail the sampling of GM pollen, sample DNA extraction and real-time PCR analysis. Our results suggest that this 'GM pollen monitoring by bioaerosol sampling and PCR screening' approach might represent an useful aid in the surveillance of GM-free areas, centres of origin and natural reserves., (© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.)

Escherichia coli is a group of bacteria which has raised a lot of safety concerns in recent years. Five major intestinal pathogenic groups have been recognized amongst which the verocytotoxin or shiga-toxin (stx1 and/or stx2) producing E. coli (VTEC or STEC respectively) have received a lot of attention recently. Indeed, due to the high number of outbreaks related to VTEC strains, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has requested the monitoring of the "top-five" serogroups (O26, O103, O111, O145 and O157) most often encountered in food borne diseases and addressed the need for validated VTEC detection methods. Here we report the development of a set of intercalating dye Real-time PCR methods capable of rapidly detecting the presence of the toxin genes together with intimin (eae) in the case of VTEC, or aggregative protein (aggR), in the case of the O104:H4 strain responsible for the outbreak in Germany in 2011. All reactions were optimized to perform at the same annealing temperature permitting the multiplex application in order to minimize the need of material and to allow for high-throughput analysis. In addition, High Resolution Melting (HRM) analysis allowing the discrimination among strains possessing similar virulence traits was established. The development, application to food samples and the flexibility in use of the methods are thoroughly discussed. Together, these Real-time PCR methods facilitate the detection of VTEC in a new highly efficient way and could represent the basis for developing a simple pathogenic E. coli platform.

European Commission regulation 2073/2005 on the microbiological criteria for food requires that Escherichia coli is monitored as an indicator of hygienic conditions. Since verocytotoxigenic E. coli (VTEC) strains often cause food-borne infections by the consumption of raw food, the Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ) panel of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recommended their monitoring in food as well. In particular, VTEC strains belonging to serogroups such as O26, O103, O111, O145, and O157 are known causative agents of several human outbreaks. Eight real-time PCR methods for the detection of E. coli toxin genes and their variants (stx(1), stx(2)), the intimin gene (eae), and five serogroup-specific genes have been proposed by the European Reference Laboratory for VTEC (EURL-VTEC) as a technical specification to the European Normalization Committee (CEN TC275/WG6). Here we applied a "modular approach" to the in-house validation of these PCR methods. The modular approach subdivides an analytical process into separate parts called "modules," which are independently validated based on method performance criteria for a limited set of critical parameters. For the VTEC real-time PCR module, the following parameters are being assessed: specificity, dynamic range, PCR efficiency, and limit of detection (LOD). This study describes the modular approach for the validation of PCR methods to be used in food microbiology, using single-target plasmids as positive controls and showing their applicability with food matrices.

A total of 266 lactic acid bacteria (LAB) have been isolated from minced beef stored at 0, 5, 10 and 15 °C aerobically and under modified atmosphere packaging consisting of 40% CO(2)-30% O(2)-30% N(2) in the presence MAP (+) and absence MAP (-) of oregano essential oil. Sequencing of their 16S rRNA gene along with presence of the katA gene demonstrated dominance of the LAB microbiota by Leuconostoc spp. during aerobic storage at 5, 10 and 15 °C, as well as during MAP (-) and MAP (+) storage at 10 and 15 °C; Lactobacillus sakei prevailed during aerobic storage at 0 °C, as well as at MAP (-) and MAP (+) storage at 0 and 5 °C. The sporadic presence of other species such as Leuconostoc mesenteroides, Weisella viridescens, Lactobacillus casei and Lactobacillus curvatus has also been determined. Pulsed-Field Gel Electrophoresis of high molecular weight genomic DNA revealed the dynamics of the isolated LAB strains. Prevalence of Leuconostoc spp. was attributed to one strain only. On the other hand, packaging conditions affected Lb. sakei strain spoilage dynamics., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Katiki Domokou is a traditional Greek cheese, which has received the Protected Designation of Origin recognition since 1994. Its microfloras have not been studied although its structure and composition may enable (or even favor) the survival and growth of several pathogens, including Listeria monocytogenes. The persistence of L. monocytogenes during storage at different temperatures has been the subject of many studies since temperature abuse of food products is often encountered. In the present study, five strains of L. monocytogenes were aseptically inoculated individually and as a cocktail in Katiki Domokou cheese, which was then stored at 5, 10, 15, and 20 degrees C. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis was used to monitor strain evolution or persistence during storage at different temperatures in the case of the cocktail inoculum. The results suggested that strain survival of L. monocytogenes was temperature dependent since different strains predominated at different temperatures. Such information is of great importance in risk assessment studies, which typically consider only the presence or absence of the pathogen.

A total of 108 enterococcal strains previously isolated from spontaneously fermented sausages were identified using phenotypic traits, pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), and sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene. The proteolytic and lipolytic activities of these isolates and their ability to decarboxylate lysine, tyrosine, ornithine, and histidine and to produce antimicrobial compounds also were assessed. All strains were identified as Enterococcus faecium, and a lack of correlation between data derived from phenotypic and those derived from genotypic techniques was evident. Wide strain diversity was revealed by both phenotypic properties and PFGE strain typing results. Few strains were present in all batches, suggesting a possible persistence in the respective production plants. Neither proteolytic nor lipolytic activities were detected, and none of the strains decarboxylated lysine, tyrosine, ornithine, or histidine. A total of 42 E. faecium strains inhibited in vitro growth of Listeria monocytogenes, which suggests possible contribution of these strains to the safety of the end product and possible utilization of these strains as protective cultures.

Aim: To determine the contribution of enterococci and coliforms from bovine faeces and teats to contamination of raw milk., Methods: Putative enterococci (n = 301) and coliforms (n = 365) were isolated from bovine faeces (n = 20), cows' teats (n = 20), the raw milk (n = 1) and the milking environment (n = 4) on one farm. The clonal relationships of each bacterial group were investigated using Pulsed-Field Gel Electrophoresis of genomic macrorestriction fragments. Representatives of the different clusters of enterococci were identified by molecular techniques including rep-PCR, SDS protein profiling, Fluorescent Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (FAFLP), phenylalanyl-tRNA synthase (pheS) sequence analysis and/or 16S rDNA gene sequencing. Coliforms were identified by API 20E strips., Results: The majority of the bovine faecal enterococcal isolates were identified as a potential new species of Aerococcus (100 isolates); E. faecium (28 isolates), and Aerococcus viridans (28 isolates) were also found. All coliform isolates from the bovine faeces were identified as Escherichia coli. The coliforms present in the milk were Hafnia alvei, Serratia liquefaciens, Yersinia enterocolitica and Enterobacter amnigenus. No E. coli, Enterococcus or Aerococcus from the bovine faeces were found in the milk. A single clone of H. alvei was found in the water, the milking equipment and the milk, suggesting that the water was the source of the organism in the milk. No vancomycin-resistant aerococci or enterococci were found while most of the isolates tested showed the presence of at least one virulence gene. The milk-sock retained strains that adhered to particulate faecal material. Coliforms were present at approx. 2 orders of magnitude greater than enterococci in the bovine faeces., Conclusions: The results imply that bovine faeces are not an important source of contamination of raw milk with enterococci or coliforms., Significance and Impact of the Study: The results confirm those of two previous studies (Gelsomino et al. 2001, Int J Food Microbiol71, 177-188 and Kagkli et al. 2007, Int J Food Microbiol114, 243-251) on two other farms. The three studies show that contamination of milk by enterococci, lactobacilli and coliforms of bovine faecal origin is extremely low. The results also suggest that where raw milk is implicated in food infection, other factors in addition to faecal contamination must be involved.

Enterococci and lactobacilli are ubiquitously found in the intestinal microflora of humans and animals. The aim of the present study was to determine the importance of bovine faeces as a source of these organisms in raw milk. One hundred and fifty six putative enterococci and 362 lactobacilli were isolated from bovine faeces (n=26), cows' teats, raw milk, the milking machine and the milking environment on one farm. The clonal relationships of each group were investigated using Pulsed-Field Gel Electrophoresis and representatives of the different clusters were identified by repetitive DNA element (rep)-PCR fingerprinting, protein profiling, phenylalanyl-tRNA synthase (pheS) sequence analysis or 16S rDNA gene sequencing. Lactobacilli were present at approximately 3 orders of magnitude greater than enterococci in the bovine faeces. The majority of the bovine faecal enterococcal isolates were identified as Aerococcus viridans. Seven teat isolates belonged to a potential novel Aerococcus sp. and one bovine faecal isolate to a potential second novel Aerococcus sp. The lactobacilli present in the bovine faeces were predominantly Lactobacillus mucosae and Lactobacillus brevis, with small numbers of Lactobacillus plantarum. Only one Enterococcus (a strain of E. casseliflavus) out of 76 and one Lactobacillus (a strain of L. parabuchneri/kefir) out of 247 of the bovine faecal isolates was found in the milk. The major source of these bacteria in the milk was the milking equipment.

Cheese flavour is the result of complex biochemical transformations attributed to bacteria and yeasts grown on the curd of smear-ripened cheeses. Volatile sulphur compounds (VSCs) are responsible for the characteristic aromatic notes of several cheeses. In the present study, we have assessed the ability of Kluyveromyces lactis, Kluyveromyces marxianus and Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains, which are frequently isolated from smear-ripened cheeses, to grow and deacidify a cheese medium and generate VSCs resulting from L-methionine degradation. The Kluyveromyces strains produced a wider variety and higher amounts of VSCs than the S. cerevisiae ones. We have shown that the pathway is likely to be proceeding differently in these two yeast genera. The VSCs are mainly generated through the degradation of 4-methylthio-oxobutyric acid in the Kluyveromyces strains, in contrast to the S. cerevisiae ones which have higher L-methionine demethiolating activity, resulting in a direct conversion of L-methionine to methanethiol. The deacidification activity which is of major importance in the early stages of cheese-ripening was also compared in S. cerevisiae and Kluyveromyces strains.

Kluyveromyces lactis is one of the cheese-ripening yeasts and is believed to contribute to the formation of volatile sulfur compounds (VSCs) through degradation of L-methionine. L-methionine aminotransferase is potentially involved in the pathway that results in the production of methanethiol, a common precursor of VSCs. Even though this pathway has been studied previously, the genes involved have never been studied. In this study, on the basis of sequence homology, all the putative aminotransferase-encoding genes from K. lactis were cloned in an overproducing vector, pCXJ10, and their effects on the production of VSCs were analyzed. Two genes, KlARO8.1 and KlARO8.2, were found to be responsible for L-methionine aminotransferase activity. Transformants carrying these genes cloned in the pCXJ10 vector produced threefold-larger amounts of VSCs than the transformant containing the plasmid without any insert or other related putative aminotransferases produced.