Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33144886›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2020

Evaluation of existing guidelines for their adequacy for the microbial characterisation and environmental risk assessment of microorganisms obtained through synthetic biology.

EFSA Scientific Committee, Simon More, Vasileios Bampidis, Diane Benford, Claude Bragard, Thorhallur Halldorsson, Antonio Hernández-Jerez, Hougaard Bennekou Susanne, Kostas Koutsoumanis, Kyriaki Machera and 14 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. New developments in biotechnology applied to microorganisms.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2024
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Environmental Galenics: large-scale fortification of extant microbiomes with engineered bioremediation agents.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

24 authors.

EFSA Scientific Committee
Simon More
Vasileios Bampidis
Diane Benford
Claude Bragard
Thorhallur Halldorsson
Antonio Hernández-Jerez
Hougaard Bennekou Susanne
Kostas Koutsoumanis
Kyriaki Machera
Hanspeter Naegeli
Søren Saxmose Nielsen
Josef Schlatter
Dieter Schrenk
Vittorio Silano
Dominique Turck
Maged Younes
Boet Glandorf
Lieve Herman
Christoph Tebbe
Just Vlak
Jaime Aguilera
Reinhilde Schoonjans
Pier Sandro Cocconcelli

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

EFSA was asked by the European Commission to consider synthetic biology developments for agri-food use in the near future and to determine if the use of this technology is expected to constitute potential risks and hazards for the environment. Moreover, EFSA was requested to evaluate the adequacy of existing guidelines for risk assessment and if updated guidance is needed. The scope of this Opinion covers viable synthetic biology microorganisms (SynBioMs) expected to be deliberately released into the environment. The evaluation was based on: (i) horizon scanning of published information, (ii) gap analysis of existing guidelines covering the scope of this mandate, and (iii) future outlooks. A horizon scan showed that SynBioM applications could be ready for deliberate release into the environment of the EU in the next decade. However, extensively engineered SynBioMs are only expected in the wider future. For the microbial characterisation and the environmental risk assessment, the existing EFSA Guidances are useful as a basis. The extent to which existing Guidances can be used depends on the familiarity of the SynBioM with non-modified organisms. Among the recommendations for updated Guidance, the range of uses of products to be assessed covering all agri-food uses and taking into account all types of microorganisms, their relevant exposure routes and receiving environments. It is suggested that new EFSA Guidances address all 'specific areas of risk' as per Directive 2001/18/EC. No novel environmental hazards are expected for current and near future SynBioMs. However, the efficacy by which the SynBioMs interact with the environment may differ. This could lead to increased exposure and risk. Novel hazards connected with the development of xenobionts may be expected in the wider future.

Indexed as

agri‐food usechassisdeliberate releaseenvironmental risk assessmentgenetically modified microorganism (GMM)microbial characterisationmicroorganismsynthetic biology

Identifiers

PMID33144886
PMCPMC7592124

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
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.