Search

In angiosperms, wound-derived signals travel through the vasculature to systemically activate defence responses throughout the plant. In Arabidopsis thaliana, activity of vasculature-specific Clade 3 glutamate receptor-like (GLR) channels is required for the transmission of electrical signals and cytosolic Ca 2+ ([Ca 2+ ] cyt ) waves from wounded leaves to distal tissues, triggering activation of oxylipin-dependent defences. Whether nonvascular plants mount systemic responses upon wounding remains unknown. To explore the evolution of systemic defence responses, we investigated electrical and calcium signalling in the nonvascular plant Marchantia polymorpha. We found that electrical signals and [Ca 2+ ] cyt waves are generated in response to mechanical wounding and propagated to nondamaged distal tissues in M. polymorpha. Functional analysis of MpGLR, the only GLR encoded in the genome of M. polymorpha, indicates that its activity is necessary for the systemic transmission of wound-induced electrical signals and [Ca 2+ ] cyt waves, similar to vascular plants. However, spread of these signals is neither coupled to systemic accumulation of oxylipins nor to a transcriptional defence response in the distal tissues of wounded M. polymorpha plants. Our results suggest that lack of vasculature prevents translocation of additional signalling factors that, together with electrical signals and [Ca 2+ ] cyt waves, contribute to systemic activation of defences in tracheophytes., (© 2024 The Author(s). New Phytologist © 2024 New Phytologist Foundation.)

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have changed the therapeutic landscape of many solid tumors. Modulation of the intestinal microbiota by antibiotics (Abx) has been suggested to impact on ICI outcomes., Methods: Retrospective analysis of 475 patients with advanced solid tumors treated with ICI from 2015 to 2022. For each patient, the use of Abx was recorded from 1 month before ICI initiation until disease progression or death. The impact of Abx on objective response rates (ORR), disease control rates (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) was analyzed. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests were used to compare survival outcomes., Results: In total 475 patients with advanced solid tumors were evaluated. Median age was 67.5 years and performance status (PS) was 0-1 in 84.6%. 66.5% of patients received Abx during treatment with ICI, mainly beta-lactams (53.8%) and quinolones (35.9%). The early exposure to Abx (from 60 days before to 42 days after the first cycle of ICI) was associated with a lower ORR (27.4% vs 39.4%; P < .01), a lower DCR (37.3% vs 57.4%; P < .001), lower PFS (16.8 m vs 27.8 m; HR 0.66; P < .001]) and lower OS (2.5 m vs 6.6 m; HR 0.68; P = .001]). The negative impact of Abx on OS and PFS was confirmed by a multivariable analysis. This effect was not observed among patients receiving Abx after 6 weeks from ICI initiation., Conclusions: Our results validate the hypothesis of a detrimental effect of an early exposure to Abxon the efficacy of ICI in a multi-tumor cohort of patients., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Previous studies have suggested a negative impact of steroids on the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), but how this effect is modulated by the dosage and time of administration is yet to be clarified. We have performed a retrospective analysis of 475 patients with advanced solid tumors treated with ICI as monotherapy from 2015 to 2022. Data regarding immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and clinical outcomes were collected. For each patient, the daily steroid dose (in mg/kg of prednisone) was registered until disease progression or death. The impact of cumulative doses on response rates and survival outcomes was analyzed within different periods. The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly lower among patients exposed to steroids within 30 days before the first cycle of ICI (C1) (20.3% vs. 36.7%, p < 0.01) and within the first 90 days of treatment (25.7% vs. 37.7%, p = 0.01). This negative association was confirmed by multivariable analysis. Higher mean steroid doses were observed among non-responders, and cumulative doses were inversely correlated with the disease control rate (DCR) around ICI initiation. Remarkably, poorer outcomes were observed even in patients belonging to the lowest dose quartile compared to the steroid-naïve population. The exposure to steroids after 6 months of ICI was not associated with worse survival outcomes. Our results suggest that the potential impact of steroids on ICI efficacy may be time-dependent, prevailing around ICI initiation, and dose-dependent, with modulation of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as a possible underlying mechanism., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Genetically modified (GM) maize DP910521 was developed to confer resistance against certain lepidopteran insect pests as well as tolerance to glufosinate herbicide; these properties were achieved by introducing the mo-pat, pmi and cry1B.34 expression cassettes. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses did not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics tested between maize DP910521 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment except for the levels of iron 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 Cry1B.34, PAT and PMI proteins as expressed in maize DP910521. The GMO panel finds no evidence that the genetic modification impacts the overall safety of maize DP910521. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize DP910521 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP910521 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 maize DP910521 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 DP910521. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP910521 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 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.)

EFSA was asked by the European Parliament to provide a scientific opinion on the analysis by the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES) of Annex I of the European Commission proposal for a regulation 'on plants obtained by certain new genomic techniques (NGTs) and their food and feed, and amending regulation (EU) 2017/625'. The Panel on genetically modified organisms (GMO) assessed the opinion published by ANSES, which focuses on (i) the need to clarify the definitions and scope, (ii) the scientific basis for the equivalence criteria and (iii) the need to take potential risks from category 1 NGT plants into account. The EFSA GMO Panel considered the ANSES analysis and comments on various terms used in the criteria in Annex I of the European Commission proposal and discussed definitions based on previous EFSA GMO Panel opinions. The EFSA GMO Panel concluded that the available scientific literature shows that plants containing the types and numbers of genetic modifications used as criteria to identify category 1 NGT plants in the European Commission proposal do exist as the result of spontaneous mutations or random mutagenesis. Therefore, it is scientifically justified to consider category 1 NGT plants as equivalent to conventionally bred plants with respect to the similarity of genetic modifications and the similarity of potential risks. The EFSA GMO Panel did not identify any additional hazards and risks associated with the use of NGTs compared to conventional breeding techniques in its previous Opinions., 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.)

Following the joint submission of dossier GMFF-2022-9170 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer Agriculture B.V. and Corteva Agriscience Belgium B.V., 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 herbicide tolerant and insect resistant genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 and 8 out of 10 of its subcombinations, 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, an evaluation of the literature retrieved by a scoping review, a search for additional studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant and updated bioinformatics analyses. 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 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 and 8 out of 10 of its subcombinations considered for renewal are identical to the sequences of the originally assessed events, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal dossier GMFF-2022-9170 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 and 8 out of 10 of its subcombinations., 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.)

Following the submission of dossier GMFF-2022-3670 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Corteva Agriscience Belgium BV and Bayer Agriculture BV, 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 herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × NK603, 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 a search for 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 sequences of the events in maize MON 89034 × 1507 × NK603 considered for renewal are identical to the sequences of the originally assessed events, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal dossier GMFF-2022-3670 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize MON 89034 × 1507 × NK603., 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 (GM) maize MON 94804 was developed to achieve a reduction in plant height by introducing the GA20ox&#95;SUP suppression cassette. The molecular characterisation and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional differences identified between maize MON 94804 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for ear height, plant height and levels of carbohydrates in forage, which do not raise safety or nutritional concerns. The Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO Panel) does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the GA20ox&#95;SUP precursor-miRNA and derived mature miRNA as expressed in maize MON 94804 and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of maize MON 94804. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize MON 94804 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 94804 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 MON 94804 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 94804. The GMO Panel concludes that maize MON 94804 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 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.)

Following the submission of dossier GMFF-2022-9450 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer Agriculture BV, 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 protected genetically modified maize MON 810, for food and feed uses (including pollen), excluding cultivation within the European Union. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post-market environmental monitoring reports, an evaluation of the literature retrieved by a scoping review, additional studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant and updated bioinformatics analyses. 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 810 considered for renewal is identical to the sequence of the originally assessed event, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in dossier GMFF-2022-9450 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize MON 810., 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.)

Plant genomes encode a unique group of papain-type Cysteine EndoPeptidases (CysEPs) containing a KDEL endoplasmic reticulum (ER) retention signal (KDEL-CysEPs or CEPs). CEPs process the cell-wall scaffolding EXTENSIN (EXT) proteins that regulate de novo cell-wall formation and cell expansion. Since CEPs cleave EXTs and EXT-related proteins, acting as cell-wall-weakening agents, they may play a role in cell elongation. The Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) genome encodes 3 CEPs (AtCPE1-AtCEP3). Here, we report that the genes encoding these 3 Arabidopsis CEPs are highly expressed in root-hair (RH) cell files. Single mutants have no evident abnormal RH phenotype, but atcep1-3 atcep3-2 and atcep1-3 atcep2-2 double mutants have longer RHs than wild-type (Wt) plants, suggesting that expression of AtCEPs in root trichoblasts restrains polar elongation of the RH. We provide evidence that the transcription factor NAC1 (petunia NAM and Arabidopsis ATAF1, ATAF2, and CUC2) activates AtCEPs expression in roots to limit RH growth. Chromatin immunoprecipitation indicates that NAC1 binds to the promoter of AtCEP1, AtCEP2, and, to a lower extent, AtCEP3 and may directly regulate their expression. Inducible NAC1 overexpression increases AtCEP1 and AtCEP2 transcript levels in roots and leads to reduced RH growth while the loss of function nac1-2 mutation reduces AtCEP1-AtCEP3 gene expression and enhances RH growth. Likewise, expression of a dominant chimeric NAC1-SRDX repressor construct leads to increased RH length. Finally, we show that RH cell walls in the atcep1-3 atcep3-2 double mutant have reduced levels of EXT deposition, suggesting that the defects in RH elongation are linked to alterations in EXT processing and accumulation. Our results support the involvement of AtCEPs in controlling RH polar growth through EXT processing and insolubilization at the cell wall., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement. The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (© American Society of Plant Biologists 2023. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

As a result of their coherent interaction, two-dimensional periodic arrays of metallic nanostructures support collective modes commonly known as lattice resonances. Among them, out-of-plane lattice resonances, for which the nanostructures are polarized in the direction perpendicular to the array, are particularly interesting since their unique configuration minimizes radiative losses. Consequently, these modes present extremely high quality factors and field enhancements that make them ideal for a wide range of applications. However, for the same reasons, their excitation is very challenging and has only been achieved at oblique incidence, which adds a layer of complexity to experiments and poses some limitations on their usage. Here, we present an approach to excite out-of-plane lattice resonances in bipartite arrays under normal incidence. Our method is based on exploiting the electric-magnetic coupling between the nanostructures, which has been traditionally neglected in the characterization of arrays made of metallic nanostructures. Using a rigorous coupled dipole model, we demonstrate that this coupling provides a general mechanism to excite out-of-plane lattice resonances under normal incidence conditions. We complete our study with a comprehensive analysis of a potential implementation of our results using an array of nanodisks with the inclusion of a substrate and a coating. This work provides an efficient approach for the excitation of out-of-plane lattice resonances at normal incidence, thus paving the way for the leverage of the extraordinary properties of these optical modes in a wide range of applications., Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing financial interest., (© 2023 American Chemical Society.)

Genetically modified cotton COT102 was developed to confer resistance against several lepidopteran species. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the differences in the agronomic-phenotypic and compositional characteristics between cotton COT102 and its non-GM comparator needs further assessment, except for levels of acid detergent fibre, which do not raise safety or nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the Vip3Aa19 and APH4 proteins as expressed in cotton COT102 and finds no evidence that the genetic modification would change the overall allergenicity of cotton COT102. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from cotton COT102 does not represent a nutritional concern for humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that cotton COT102 is as safe as the non-GM comparator and non-GM cotton varieties tested, and no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable cotton COT102 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 cotton COT102. The GMO Panel concludes that cotton COT102 is as safe as its non-GM comparator and the tested non-GM cotton 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 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.)

Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-024 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from BASF Agricultural Solutions Seed US LLC, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of 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 oilseed rape MS8, RF3 and MS8 × RF3, 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. Under the assumption that the DNA sequences of the events in oilseed rape MS8, RF3 and MS8 × RF3 considered for renewal are identical to the sequences of the originally assessed events, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-024 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on oilseed rape MS8, RF3 and MS8 × RF3., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The European Commission requested the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA GMO Panel) to assess new scientific information on maize MIR162, and to indicate whether the previous conclusions on the safety of maize MIR162 as a single event and as a part of stacked events remain valid. The new information is included in a European patent that reports a decrease in male fertility in some MIR162 inbred lines, pointing to a potential link between such decrease and the Vip3 protein expressed by maize MIR162. The EFSA GMO Panel evaluated the data provided by the patent owner and found scarce support for a causal link between Vip3 and decreased fertility. The general hypothesis of an association between event MIR162 and altered fertility could not be confirmed. The EFSA GMO Panel conducted the safety assessment based on the conservative assumption that such an association exists. The EFSA GMO Panel concluded that a decrease in male fertility would have no impact on the previous conclusions on maize MIR162 and stacked events containing MIR162., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Few data are available about the immune response to mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with breast cancer receiving cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i). We conducted a prospective, single-center study of patients with breast cancer treated with CDK4/6i who received mRNA-1273 vaccination, as well as a comparative group of healthcare workers. The primary endpoint was to compare the rate and magnitude of humoral and T-cell response after full vaccination. A better neutralizing antibody and anti-S IgG level was observed after vaccination in the subgroup of women receiving CDK4/6i, but a trend toward a reduced CD4 and CD8 T-cell response in the CDK4/6i group was not statistically significant. There were no differences in the rate of COVID-19 after vaccination (19% vs. 12%), but breakthrough infections were observed in those with lower levels of anti-S IgG and neutralizing antibodies after the first dose. A lower rate of CD4 T-cell response was also found in those individuals with breakthrough infections, although a non-significant and similar level of CD8 T-cell response was also observed, regardless of breakthrough infections. The rate of adverse events was higher in patients treated with CDK4/6i, without serious adverse events. In conclusion, there was a robust humoral response, but a blunted T-cell response to mRNA vaccine in women receiving CDK4/6i, suggesting a reduced trend of the adaptative immune response., Competing Interests: For the purpose of this article: Cristina Saavedra: travel and educational support: Novartis, Lilly and Pfizer. Speaker bureau: Novartis. Alfonso Cort&eacute;s: Speaker&acute;s bureau: Novartis. Research funding: Pfizer. Mar&iacute;a Gion: travel and educational support: Novartis and Pfizer. Elena L&oacute;pez: advisory/consultancy honorarium from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis. Speaker bureau/expert testimony honorarium from Roche, Novartis, Eisai, Astra Zeneca. Travel/accommodation/expenses from Roche, Novartis. Noelia Mart&iacute;nez: Advisory board: Novartis, Pfizer and Lilly. Eva Guerra: advisory/consultancy honorarium from AstraZeneca-MSD, Clovis Oncology, GSK-Tesaro, PharmaMar, Roche. Speaker bureau/expert testimony honorarium from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Roche, GSK. Travel/accommodation/expenses from Roche, TESARO, and Baxter. Jose L Casado reports honoraria for presentations for Gilead, MSD, and Janssen, and honoraria from Viiv Healthcare and Gilead Sciences for Advisory Board membership, all outside the submitted study. Other authors declare no conflicts of interest related with this article.

Background: Bacterial meningitis (BM) is a public health challenge as it is associated with high lethality and neurological sequelae. Worldwide, most cases are registered in the African Meningitis Belt (AMB). The role of particular socioepidemiological features is essential for understanding disease dynamics and optimizing policy-making., Objective: To identify socioepidemiological macro-determinants that contribute to explaining the differences in BM incidence between AMB and the rest of Africa., Methods: Country-level ecologic study based on the cumulative incidence estimates of the Global Burden of Disease study and reports of the MenAfriNet Consortium. Data about relevant socioepidemiological features were extracted from international sources. Multivariate regression models were implemented to define variables associated with the classification of African countries within the AMB and the incidence of BM worldwide., Results: Cumulative incidences at the AMB sub-regions were 111.93 (west), 87.23 (central), 65.10 (east), and 42.47 (north) per 100,000 population. A pattern of common origin with continuous exposition and seasonality of cases was observed. Socio-epidemiological determinants contributing to differentiating the AMB from the rest of Africa were household occupancy (OR 3.17 CI 95% 1.09-9.22, p = 0.034) and malaria incidence (OR 1.01 CI 95% 1.00-1.02, p = 0.016). BM cumulative incidence worldwide was additionally associated with temperature and gross national income per capita., Conclusion: Socioeconomic and climate conditions are macro-determinants associated with BM cumulative incidence. Multilevel designs are required to confirm these findings., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Pinilla-Monsalve, Llanos-Leyton, González, Manrique-Hernández, Rey-Serrano and Quiñones-Bautista.)

EFSA carries out the risk assessment of genetically modified plants for food and feed uses under Regulation (EU) No 503/2013. Exposure assessment - anticipated intake/extend of use shall be an essential element of the risk assessment of genetically modified feeds, as required by Regulation (EU) No 503/2013. Estimates of animal dietary exposure to newly expressed proteins should be determined to cover average consumption across all the different species, age, physiological and productive phases of farmed and companion animals, and identify and consider particular consumer groups with expected higher exposure. This statement is aimed at facilitating the reporting of the information that applicants need to provide on expected animal dietary exposure to newly expressed proteins and to increase harmonisation of the application dossiers to be assessed by the EFSA GMO Panel. Advice is provided on the selection of proper feed consumption and feed concentration data, and on the reporting of exposure's estimates. An overview of the different uncertainties that may be linked to the estimations is provided. This statement also explains how to access an Excel calculator which should be used in future applications as basis to provide a more consistent presentation of estimates of expected animal dietary exposure., (© 2023 Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority.)

Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-023 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer Agriculture BV on behalf of Bayer CropScience LP, 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 herbicide-tolerant genetically modified soybean 40-3-2, 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. Under the assumption that the DNA sequence of the event in soybean 40-3-2 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-023 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on soybean 40-3-2., (© 2022 Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority.)

Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-021 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer CropScience LP, 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 soybean MON 87701, 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. Under the assumption that the DNA sequences of the event in soybean MON 87701 considered for renewal is identical to the sequences of the originally assessed event, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-021 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on soybean MON 87701., (© 2022 Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority.)

Following the submission of application EFSA-GMO-RX-022 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer CropScience LP, 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 soybean MON 87701 × MON 89788, 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. Under the assumption that the DNA sequences of the events in soybean MON 87701 × MON 89788 considered for renewal are identical to the sequences of the originally assessed event, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA-GMO-RX-022 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on soybean MON 87701 × MON 89788., (© 2022 Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority.)