Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30177789›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2018

Reply to 'Comments on two recent publications on GM maize and Roundup'.

Michael N Antoniou, Robin Mesnage, Sarah Agapito-Tenfen, Gilles-Eric Séralini

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Michael N AntoniouGene Expression and Therapy Group, King's College London, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics, 8th Floor, Tower Wing, Guy's Hospital, Great Maze Pond, London, SE1 9RT, United Kingdom. michael.antoniou@kcl.ac.uk.
Robin MesnageGene Expression and Therapy Group, King's College London, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics, 8th Floor, Tower Wing, Guy's Hospital, Great Maze Pond, London, SE1 9RT, United Kingdom.
Sarah Agapito-TenfenGenøk, Center for Biosafety, The Science Park, P.O. Box 6418, Tromsø, 9294, Norway.
Gilles-Eric SéraliniUniversity of Caen, Institute of Biology, EA 2608 and Network on Risks, Quality and Sustainable Environment, MRSH, Esplanade de la Paix, University of Caen, Caen, 14032, Cedex, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The opinion expressed by Eriksson and colleagues' fails to recognise that there are no standard experimental designs for academic investigations involving omics analyses of genetically modified crops and that the only valid comparator to determine the effect of the process of transgenesis is a near isogenic variety grown at the same time and location, as was the case in our investigation of NK603 maize. Eriksson does not acknowledge that the quality of the rat liver tissues in our chronic Roundup toxicity study has neither been questioned nor branded as unsuitable for further investigation. In addition, Eriksson fails to appreciate that the statistical methods we used to analyse the liver metabolomics dataset are recognised as appropriate as some of a number of approaches that can be taken. Moreover, Eriksson neglects to mention that the proteomics analysis of the liver tissues highlights structural and functional damage from Roundup exposure. Thus our results are sound and the claims by Eriksson and colleagues of experimental flaws are unfounded.Replying to: Eriksson et al. Sci Rep 8 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-30440-7 .

Indexed as

Crops, AgriculturalMetabolomicsPlants, Genetically ModifiedProteomicsZea mays

Identifiers

PMID30177789
PMCPMC6120931

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.