ArticlePloS one2016
A 90-Day Feeding Study in Rats to Assess the Safety of Genetically Engineered Pork.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A 90-day safety study of meat from MSTN gene-edited Mongolian cattle in mice.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A 90-Day Safety Study of Meat fromLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Toxicological evaluation of transgenic silkworms.Toxicology research · 2020Article
- Effect of ZFN-edited myostatin loss-of-function mutation on gut microbiota in Meishan pigs.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our laboratory recently produced genetically engineered (GE) Meishan pigs containing a ZFN-edited myostatin loss-of-function mutant. These GE pigs develop and grow as normal as wild type pigs but produce pork with greater lean yield and lower fat mass. To assess any potential subchronic toxicity risks of this GE pork, a 90-day feeding study was conducted in Sprague-Dawley rats. Rats were randomly divided into five groups, and fed for 90 days with basic diet and basic diets formulated with low dose and high dose pork prepared from wild type pigs and GE pigs, respectively. Animal behaviors and clinical signs were monitored twice daily, and body weight and food consumption were measured and recorded weekly. At days 45 and 90, blood tests (lipid panel, electrolytes, parameters related to liver and kidney functions, and complete blood counts) were performed. Additionally, gross pathology and histopathological analyses were performed for major organs in each group. Data analysis shows that there were no significant differences in growth rate, food consumption, and blood test parameters between rat groups fed with GE pork and wild type pork. Although differences in some liver function parameters (such as aspartate aminotransferase, total proteins, albumin, and alkaline phosphatase) and white blood cell counts (such as lymphocyte percentage and monocyte percentage) were observed between rats fed with high dose GE pork and basic diet, all test results in rats fed with GE pork are in the normal range. Additionally, there are no apparent lesions noted in all organs isolated from rats in all five feeding groups on days 45 and 90. Overall, our results clearly indicate that food consumption of GE pork produced by ZFN-edited myostatin loss-of-function mutant pigs did not have any long-term adverse effects on the health status in rats.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.