Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25184300›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Toxicological evaluation of lactase derived from recombinant Pichia pastoris.

Shiying Zou, Xiaoyun He, Yifei Liu, Delong Chen, Yunbo Luo, Kunlun Huang, Wei Zhang, Wentao Xu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shiying ZouLaboratory of Food Safety and Molecular Biology, College of Food Science and Nutritional Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing, People's Republic of China; The Supervision, Inspection and Testing Center of Genetically Modified Organisms, Ministry of Agriculture, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Xiaoyun HeLaboratory of Food Safety and Molecular Biology, College of Food Science and Nutritional Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing, People's Republic of China; The Supervision, Inspection and Testing Center of Genetically Modified Organisms, Ministry of Agriculture, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Yifei LiuLaboratory of Food Safety and Molecular Biology, College of Food Science and Nutritional Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Delong ChenLaboratory of Food Safety and Molecular Biology, College of Food Science and Nutritional Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Yunbo LuoLaboratory of Food Safety and Molecular Biology, College of Food Science and Nutritional Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing, People's Republic of China; The Supervision, Inspection and Testing Center of Genetically Modified Organisms, Ministry of Agriculture, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Kunlun HuangLaboratory of Food Safety and Molecular Biology, College of Food Science and Nutritional Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing, People's Republic of China; The Supervision, Inspection and Testing Center of Genetically Modified Organisms, Ministry of Agriculture, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Wei ZhangBiotechnology Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Wentao XuLaboratory of Food Safety and Molecular Biology, College of Food Science and Nutritional Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing, People's Republic of China; The Supervision, Inspection and Testing Center of Genetically Modified Organisms, Ministry of Agriculture, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
China Agricultural University · CNChinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A recombinant lactase was expressed in Pichia pastoris, resulting in enzymatic activity of 3600 U/mL in a 5 L fermenter. The lactase product was subjected to a series of toxicological tests to determine its safety for use as an enzyme preparation in the dairy industry. This recombinant lactase had the highest activity of all recombinant strains reported thus far. Acute oral toxicity, mutagenicity, genotoxic, and subchronic toxicity tests performed in rats and mice showed no death in any groups. The lethal dose 50% (LD50) based on the acute oral toxicity study is greater than 30 mL/kg body weight, which is in accordance with the 1500 L milk consumption of a 50 kg human daily. The lactase showed no mutagenic activity in the Ames test or a mouse sperm abnormality test at levels of up to 5 mg/plate and 1250 mg/kg body weight, respectively. It also showed no genetic toxicology in a bone marrow cell micronucleus test at levels of up to 1250 mg/kg body weight. A 90-day subchronic repeated toxicity study via the diet with lactase levels up to 1646 mg/kg (1000-fold greater than the mean human exposure) did not show any treatment-related significant toxicological effects on body weight, food consumption, organ weights, hematological and clinical chemistry, or histopathology compared to the control groups. This toxicological evaluation system is comprehensive and can be used in the safety evaluation of other enzyme preparations. The lactase showed no acute, mutagenic, genetic, or subchronic toxicity under our evaluation system.

Indexed as

Dose-Response Relationship, DrugAdministration, OralAnimalsFermentationHumansLactaseLethal Dose 50MiceMicronucleus TestsPichiaRatsRecombinant ProteinsToxicity Tests, AcuteLactaseRecombinant Proteins

Identifiers

PMID25184300
PMCPMC4153634
OpenAlexW2025745668

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.