Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36274984›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2022

Criteria for risk assessment of plants produced by targeted mutagenesis, cisgenesis and intragenesis.

EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), Ewen Mullins, Jean-Louis Bresson, Tamas Dalmay, Ian Crawford Dewhurst, Michelle M Epstein, Leslie George Firbank, Philippe Guerche, Jan Hejatko, Francisco Javier Moreno and 12 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. PossibleFrontiers in plant science · 2023
    Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

22 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)
Ewen Mullins
Jean-Louis Bresson
Tamas Dalmay
Ian Crawford Dewhurst
Michelle M Epstein
Leslie George Firbank
Philippe Guerche
Jan Hejatko
Francisco Javier Moreno
Hanspeter Naegeli
Fabien Nogué
Nils Rostoks
Jose Juan Sánchez Serrano
Giovanni Savoini
Eve Veromann
Fabio Veronesi
Antonio Fernandez
Andrea Gennaro
Nikoletta Papadopoulou
Tommaso Raffaello
Reinhilde Schoonjans
European Food Safety Authority · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

EFSA was asked by the european Commission to develop criteria as advice for consideration for the risk assessment of plants produced by targeted mutagenesis, cisgenesis and intragenesis. EFSA proposes in this statement six main criteria to assist the risk assessment of these plants. The first four criteria are related to the molecular characterisation of the genetic modification introduced in the recipient plant. The four criteria evaluate whether any exogenous DNA sequence(s) is/are present (Criterion 1), whether such sequence derives from the breeders' gene pool (Criterion 2), the type of integration (Criterion 3) and whether any endogenous plant gene is interrupted (Criterion 4). Depending on the evaluation of the above criteria, the product can be a genome edited plant where no exogenous DNA sequence is present, or a cisgenic or intragenic plant where the cisgenic and intragenic sequence are introduced by targeted insertion and no plant endogenous genes are interrupted. In these cases, two more criteria are assessed to evaluate the history of safe use (Criterion 5) and the structure and function of the new allele (Criterion 6). If cisgenic and intragenic sequence are introduced by random integration without interruption of an endogenous gene, or when no risk is identified when an endogenous gene is interrupted, the criteria 5 and 6 will also be assessed. Evaluating the history of safe use is an important part of the proportionate risk assessment of cisgenic, intragenic and genome-edited plants since the newly introduced allele may already be present in nature. However, when the history of safe use cannot be sufficiently demonstrated, the function and structure of the introduced allele should be carefully assessed. Recommendations are also included on the aspects that need further elaboration for full applicability of the criteria proposed herein are also included.

Indexed as

cisgenesiscriteriaGM plantintragenesisnew genomic techniquesrisk assessmenttargeted mutagenesis

Identifiers

PMID36274984
PMCPMC9583736
OpenAlexW4306926762

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.