Genetically modified crops deserve greater ecotoxicological scrutiny.

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Biodiversity assessment and environmental risk analysis of the single line transgenic pod borer resistant cowpea.PeerJ · 2024
   Article
2. Bee Stressors from an Immunological Perspective and Strategies to Improve Bee Health.Veterinary sciences · 2022
   Review
3. Sublethal Endpoints in Non-target Organism Testing for Insect-Active GE Crops.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020
   Review
4. Effects of Bt cabbage pollen on the honeybee Apis mellifera L.Scientific reports · 2018
   Article
5. Variation among conventional cultivars could be used as a criterion for environmental safety assessment of Bt rice on nontarget arthropods.Scientific reports · 2017
   Article
6. Bt proteins Cry1Ah and Cry2Ab do not affect cotton aphid Aphis gossypii and ladybeetle Propylea japonica.Scientific reports · 2016
   Article
7. Transgenic Bt Cotton Does Not Disrupt the Top-Down Forces Regulating the Cotton Aphid in Central China.PloS one · 2016
   Article
8. Assessing Potential Impact of Bt Eggplants on Non-Target Arthropods in the Philippines.PloS one · 2016
   Article
9. Biosafety assessment of GFP transplastomic tobacco to rhizosphere microbial community.Ecotoxicology (London, England) · 2014
   Article
10. The cultivation of Bt corn producing Cry1Ac toxins does not adversely affect non-target arthropods.PloS one · 2014
    Article
11. Natural enemies delay insect resistance to Bt crops.PloS one · 2014
    Article
12. Effects of transgenic Cry1Ac + CpTI cotton on non-target mealybug pest Ferrisia virgata and its predator Cryptolaemus montrouzieri.PloS one · 2014
    Article
13. Identification of top-down forces regulating cotton aphid population growth in transgenic Bt cotton in central China.PloS one · 2014
    Article
14. Transgenic Bt rice does not challenge host preference of the target pest of rice leaffolder, Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae).PloS one · 2013
    Article
15. Impact of single and stacked insect-resistant Bt-cotton on the honey bee and silkworm.PloS one · 2013
    Article
16. Does transgenic Cry1Ac + CpTI cotton pollen affect hypopharyngeal gland development and midgut proteolytic enzyme activity in the honey bee Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera, Apidae)?Ecotoxicology (London, England) · 2012
    Article
17. Application of a novel method PCR-ligase detection reaction for tracking predator-prey trophic links in insect-resistant GM rice ecosystem.Ecotoxicology (London, England) · 2011
    Article
18. The four cornerstones of Evolutionary Toxicology.Ecotoxicology (London, England) · 2011
    Article
19. Use of an innovative T-tube maze assay and the proboscis extension response assay to assess sublethal effects of GM products and pesticides on learning capacity of the honey bee Apis mellifera L.Ecotoxicology (London, England) · 2010
    Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as