Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27684490›Full record

ArticlePloS one

Immunotoxicological Evaluation of Genetically Modified Rice Expressing Cry1Ab/Ac Protein (TT51-1) by a 6-Month Feeding Study on Cynomolgus Monkeys.

Xiaoyan Tan, Xiaobing Zhou, Yao Tang, Jianjun Lv, Lin Zhang, Li Sun, Yanwei Yang, Yufa Miao, Hua Jiang, Gaofeng Chen and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Bacillus thuringiensis Cry5B protein as a new pan-hookworm cure.International journal for parasitology. Drugs and drug resistance · 2018
    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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Xiaoyan TanKey Laboratory of Beijing for Safety Evaluation of Drugs, National Center for Safety Evaluation of Drugs, National Institutes for Food and Drug Control, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Xiaobing ZhouKey Laboratory of Beijing for Safety Evaluation of Drugs, National Center for Safety Evaluation of Drugs, National Institutes for Food and Drug Control, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Yao TangKey Laboratory of Beijing for Safety Evaluation of Drugs, National Center for Safety Evaluation of Drugs, National Institutes for Food and Drug Control, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Jianjun LvKey Laboratory of Beijing for Safety Evaluation of Drugs, National Center for Safety Evaluation of Drugs, National Institutes for Food and Drug Control, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Lin ZhangKey Laboratory of Beijing for Safety Evaluation of Drugs, National Center for Safety Evaluation of Drugs, National Institutes for Food and Drug Control, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Li SunKey Laboratory of Beijing for Safety Evaluation of Drugs, National Center for Safety Evaluation of Drugs, National Institutes for Food and Drug Control, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Yanwei YangKey Laboratory of Beijing for Safety Evaluation of Drugs, National Center for Safety Evaluation of Drugs, National Institutes for Food and Drug Control, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Yufa MiaoKey Laboratory of Beijing for Safety Evaluation of Drugs, National Center for Safety Evaluation of Drugs, National Institutes for Food and Drug Control, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Hua JiangKey Laboratory of Beijing for Safety Evaluation of Drugs, National Center for Safety Evaluation of Drugs, National Institutes for Food and Drug Control, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Gaofeng ChenKey Laboratory of Beijing for Safety Evaluation of Drugs, National Center for Safety Evaluation of Drugs, National Institutes for Food and Drug Control, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Zhiying HuangCenter of Safety Evaluation on New Drug, School of Pharmaceutical Science, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China.
Xue WangKey Laboratory of Beijing for Safety Evaluation of Drugs, National Center for Safety Evaluation of Drugs, National Institutes for Food and Drug Control, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
National Institutes for Food and Drug Control · CNSun Yat-sen University · CNGuangdong Pharmaceutical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The present study was performed to evaluate the food safety of TT51-1, a new type of genetically modified rice that expresses the Cry1Ab/Ac protein (Bt toxin) and is highly resistant to most lepidopteran pests. Sixteen male and 16 female cynomolgus monkeys were randomly divided into four groups: conventional rice (non-genetically modified rice, non-GM rice), positive control, 17.5% genetically modified rice (GM rice) and 70% GM rice. Monkeys in the non-GM rice, positive control, and GM rice groups were fed on diets containing 70% non-GM rice, 17.5% GM rice or 70% GM rice, respectively, for 182 days, whereas animals in the positive group were intravenously injected with cyclophosphamide every other day for a total of four injections before the last treatment. Six months of treatment did not yield abnormal observations. Specifically, the following parameters did not significantly differ between the non-GM rice group and GM rice groups: body weight, food consumption, electrocardiogram, hematology, immuno-phenotyping of lymphocytes in the peripheral blood, mitogen-induced peripheral blood lymphocyte proliferation, splenocyte proliferation, KLH-T cell-dependent antibody response, organ weights and ratios, and histological appearance (p>0.05). Animals from the GM rice group differed from animals in the non-GM rice group (p<0.05) in several parameters: specifically, their body temperatures and serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels were higher, whereas their levels of serum K+, Cl- and cytokines (IL-2, IL-4 and IL-5) were lower. Because dose- or time-dependent changes were not observed in this study and animals appeared histologically normal, the aforementioned differences were not considered to be adverse or related to the treatment with GM rice. In conclusion, a 6-month feeding study of TT51-1 did not show adverse immunotoxicological effects on cynomolgus monkeys.

Identifiers

PMID27684490
PMCPMC5042482
OpenAlexW2525895703

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.