ReviewTransgenic research2016
Quality of laboratory studies assessing effects of Bt-proteins on non-target organisms: minimal criteria for acceptability.
Review in Transgenic research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Environmental risk assessment of the Cry1B.34.1, Cry1B.61.1, and IPD083Cb proteins to non-target organisms.GM crops & food · 2025Article
- Assessing the Risks of Topically Applied dsRNA-Based Products to Non-target Arthropods.Frontiers in plant science · 2020Article
- Sublethal Endpoints in Non-target Organism Testing for Insect-Active GE Crops.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020Review
- Bt cotton producing Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab does not harm two parasitoids, Cotesia marginiventris and Copidosoma floridanum.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Review: biosafety assessment of Bt rice and other Bt crops using spiders as example for non-target arthropods in China.Plant cell reports · 2017Review
- Transcriptomic response of wolf spider, Pardosa pseudoannulata, to transgenic rice expressing Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab protein.BMC biotechnology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The potential risks that genetically modified plants may pose to non-target organisms and the ecosystem services they contribute to are assessed as part of pre-market risk assessments. This paper reviews the early tier studies testing the hypothesis whether exposure to plant-produced Cry34/35Ab1 proteins as a result of cultivation of maize 59122 is harmful to valued non-target organisms, in particular Arthropoda and Annelida. The available studies were assessed for their scientific quality by considering a set of criteria determining their relevance and reliability. As a case-study, this exercise revealed that when not all quality criteria are met, weighing the robustness of the study and its relevance for risk assessment is not obvious. Applying a worst-case expected environmental concentration of bioactive toxins equivalent to that present in the transgenic crop, confirming exposure of the test species to the test substance, and the use of a negative control were identified as minimum criteria to be met to guarantee sufficiently reliable data. This exercise stresses the importance of conducting studies meeting certain quality standards as this minimises the probability of erroneous or inconclusive results and increases confidence in the results and adds certainty to the conclusions drawn.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26980555What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.