| Literature DB >> 28962249 |
N V Tyshko1, V M Zhminchenko1, K E Selyaskin1, V A Pashorina1, N T Utembaeva1, V A Tutelyan1.
Abstract
This publication presents the assessment of the impact of genetically modified (GM) LibertyLink® maize on reproductive function, prenatal and postnatal progeny development of Wistar rats over three generations. The animals were divided into two groups, which were fed with rodent diet with inclusion of GM LibertyLink® ('test' group) and non-GM near-isogenic counterpart ('control' group) maize varieties. The maize was included into the diet at maximum possible level (between 32 and 33%) not causing nutritional imbalance or metabolic disturbance for the experimental animals. Data analysis showed no impact of LibertyLink® maize on the animals' fertility: the observed mating efficiency in both groups was within the normal expected range values under the given experiment conditions. The comparison of progeny prenatal development in the generations F0-F2 has not shown any differences between the groups. Analysis of the physical development of the F0-F2 progeny or pups body weight and length progress did not show any abnormalities. The average number of pups per litter in the control and test groups was within the expected range of variations. Therefore, the results should be considered as direct evidence of the lack of any reproductive toxicity of LibertyLink® maize (a.k.a. T25 maize).Entities:
Keywords: GMO; Genetically modified; Maize; Rat progeny; Reproductive function; Reprotoxicity
Year: 2014 PMID: 28962249 PMCID: PMC5598231 DOI: 10.1016/j.toxrep.2014.05.013
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Toxicol Rep ISSN: 2214-7500
Composition of the experimental groups and number of animals.
| Group | Fb | F0 | F1 | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | Adults | 35♀ + 20♂ | 50♀ + 25♂ | 40♀ + 20♂ | 190 |
| Progeny | 236 | 300 | 242 | 778 | |
| Test group | Adults | 35♀ + 20♂ | 50♀ + 25♂ | 40♀ + 20♂ | 190 |
| Progeny | 162 | 354 | 246 | 762 | |
A total of 380 adult animals and 1540 of pups were included in the experiment over three generations.
Sanitary evaluation and chemical composition of maize samples.
| Studied indicator | Near-isogenic control | GM maize | Sanitary norms |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lead | n/d | n/d | 0.5 |
| Arsenicum | n/d | n/d | 0.2 |
| Cadmium | n/d | n/d | 0.1 |
| Mercury | n/d | n/d | 0.03 |
| Hexachlorcyclohexane | n/d | n/d | 0.5 |
| DDT and its metabolites | n/d | n/d | 0.02 |
| Aldrine | n/d | n/d | – |
| Hexachloran | n/d | n/d | – |
| Heptachlor | n/d | n/d | – |
| Kelthane | n/d | n/d | – |
| Organic-mercury pesticides | n/d | n/d | Not admitted |
| 2,4-D acid, its salts and ethers | n/d | n/d | Not admitted |
| Benz(a)pyren | n/d | n/d | 0.001 |
| Aflatoxin B1 | n/d | n/d | 0.005 |
| Desoxynivalenol | n/d | n/d | – |
| T-2 toxin | 0.015 ± 0.005 | 0.011 ± 0.006 | 0.1 |
| Zearalenon | n/d | n/d | 1.0 |
| Fumonisin B1 | 0.054 ± 0.038 | n/d | – |
| Fumoinisin B2 | n/d | n/d | – |
| Protein (%) | 8.54 ± 0.09 | 9.32 ± 0.06 | – |
| Fat (%) | 4.14 ± 0.27 | 4.45 ± 0.32 | – |
| Carbohydrates (%) | 61.40 ± 0.62 | 60.86 ± 0.32 | – |
| Sum of alimentary fibers (%) | 15.64 ± 0.54 | 15.12 ± 0.32 | – |
| Ash (%) | 1.12 ± 0.11 | 1.05 ± 0.09 | – |
| Moisture (%) | 9.07 ± 0.47 | 9.23 ± 0.48 | – |
| Calories (kCal) | 311.8–322.3 | 316.4–325.2 | – |
n/d = non defined.
N = 12.
The samples of LibertyLink® maize and the non-GM near-isogenic counterpart had been grown under identical conditions (i.e. same planting locations in the USA and processing). The material was provided by Bayer CropScience.
Composition of the experimental diets with inclusion of maize.
| Diet ingredients | Weight (g) | Protein (g) | Fat (g) | Carbohydrates (g) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Casein | 19.7 | 16.7 | 0.3 | 0.0 | |
| Maize starch | 34.6 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 30.0 | |
| Sunflower oil | 3.7 | 0.0 | 3.7 | 0.0 | |
| Lard | 5.0 | 0.0 | 5.0 | 0.0 | |
| Salt mixture | 4.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Mixture of w/s vitamins | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | |
| Mixture of o/s vitamins | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | |
| 32.0 | 2.7 | 1.3 | 19.6 | ||
| g | 100.1 | 19.7 | 10.4 | 50.6 | |
| kCal | 374.8 | 78.8 | 93.6 | 202.4 | |
| Casein | 19.3 | 16.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | |
| Maize starch | 34.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 29.4 | |
| Sunflower oil | 3.5 | 0.0 | 3.5 | 0.0 | |
| Lard | 5.0 | 0.0 | 5.0 | 0.0 | |
| Salt mixture | 4.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Mixture of w/s vitamins | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | |
| Mixture of o/s vitamins | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | |
| 33.1 | 3.1 | 1.5 | 20.1 | ||
| g | 100.0 | 19.8 | 10.4 | 50.5 | |
| kCal | 374.8 | 79.2 | 93.6 | 202.0 | |
Diet ingredient formula was adjusted in order to produce nutritionally balanced diets, in accordance with the principle of isocaloricity and equivalence of chemical composition of diets [31].
Fig. 1F0 body weight progress.
Fig. 2F1 body weight progress.
Fig. 3F2 body weight progress.
Mating efficiency.
| Generation | Group | Gender | Number of co-housed rats | Number of impregnate ♀/number of fertile ♂ | Mating efficiency |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fb | Control group | ♀ | 24 | 22 | 92 |
| ♂ | 12 | 12 | 100 | ||
| Test group | ♀ | 24 | 17 | 71 | |
| ♂ | 12 | 12 | 100 | ||
| F0 | Control group | ♀ | 38 | 26 | 79 |
| ♂ | 19 | 17 | 89 | ||
| Test group | ♀ | 40 | 30 | 80 | |
| ♂ | 20 | 19 | 95 | ||
| F1 | Control group | ♀ | 30 | 26 | 87 |
| ♂ | 15 | 15 | 100 | ||
| Test group | ♀ | 30 | 23 | 77 | |
| ♂ | 15 | 15 | 100 | ||
The fertility index was taken as a ratio of fertilizing ability of males over the total number of co-housed males, or as a ratio of pregnant females over the total number of co-housed females. Since the females were put together with males in 2:1 ratio, pregnancy of both, or either female(s) confirmed male's fertilizing ability. In case neither of the females has become pregnant, the male was not considered to be fertile and the females were considered potentially fertile.
Prenatal development of progeny F0, F1 and F2.
| Recorded indicators | Generation F0 | Generation F1 | Generation F2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | Test group | Control group | Test group | Control group | Test group | ||
| Number of pregnant females | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 11 | 11 | |
| Number of ovarian corpora-lutea | Total | 117 | 104 | 127 | 117 | 124 | 142 |
| M ± SE | 11.70 ± 0.72 | 10.40 ± 0.58 | 12.70 ± 0.54 | 13.00 ± 0.53 | 11.18 ± 0.55 | 12.91 ± 0.55 | |
| Min–max | 9–15 | 8–14 | 10–15 | 11–15 | 8–14 | 10–16 | |
| Number of implantation sites | Total | 109 | 94 | 120 | 107 | 114 | 132 |
| M ± SE | 10.90 ± 0.67 | 9.40 ± 0.70 | 12.00 ± 0.54 | 11.89 ± 0.77 | 10.27 ± 0.81 | 12.00 ± 1.04 | |
| Min–max | 7–14 | 6–13 | 9–14 | 8–14 | 5–14 | 3–16 | |
| Number of alive fetuses | Total | 109 | 94 | 120 | 106 | 113 | 131 |
| M ± SE | 10.90 ± 0.67 | 9.40 ± 0.70 | 12.00 ± 0.54 | 11.78 ± 0.76 | 10.27 ± 0.81 | 11.91 ± 1.12 | |
| Min–max | 7–14 | 6–13 | 9–14 | 8–14 | 5–14 | 2–16 | |
| Number of dead fetuses | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| Number of resorptions | Total | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| M ± SE | – | – | – | – | 0.09 ± 0.09 | 0.09 ± 0.09 | |
| Min–max | – | – | – | – | 0–1 | 0–1 | |
| Pre-implantation loss (%) | 6.7 ± 2.5 | 10.0 ± 3.6 | 5.5 ± 1.3 | 9.1 ± 3.4 | 8.7 ± 4.7 | 8.0 ± 6.5 | |
| Post-implantation loss (%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.9 ± 0.9 | 0.8 ± 0.8 | 3.7 ± 3.0 | |
Out of uterus pregnancy.
Prenatal development of progeny: literature data.
| Recorded indicators | Literature references | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of pregnant females | 26 | 150 | 15 | 11 | 47 | 10 |
| Number of ovarian corpora-lutea | 12.3 ± 0.2 | – | 14.0 ± 0.4 | 14.5 ± 0.3 | 13.5 ± 0.2 | 15.8 ± 1.3 |
| Number of implantation sites | 11.2 ± 0.4 | – | 13.2 ± 0.3 | 13.5 ± 0.39 | 12.6 ± 0.2 | 15.4 ± 1.4 |
| Number of alive fetuses | 10.8 ± 0.4 | 10.6 ± 0.3 | 10.73 | 12.3 ± 0.3 | 11.5 ± 0.3 | 14.6 ± 1.9 |
| Number of resorptions | 0.42 ± 0.2 | 7.2 ± 1.2 | – | 0 | – | 0 |
| Pre-implantation loss (%) | 8.5 ± 3.0 | 14.1 ± 1.5 | 5.14 | 6.2 | 7.1 ± 1.4 | – |
| Post-implantation loss (%) | 3.6 ± 1.4 | 7.4 ± 1.2 | 5.77 | 9.2 | 8.6 ± 1.7 | 4.69 |
Postnatal development of progeny F0, F1 and F2.
| Recorded indicators | Generation F0 | Generation F1 | Generation F2 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | Test group | Control group | Test group | Control group | Test group | |
| Total number of pups | 237 | 164 | 300 | 354 | 244 | 246 |
| Of those – still born | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Mean litter size (M ± SE) | 10.73 ± 0.59 | 9.53 ± 0.59 | 11.54 ± 0.60 | 11.80 ± 0.27 | 9.68 ± 0.77 | 10.70 ± 0.50 |
| Ratio ♂/♀ in the litter (%) | 47/53 | 52/48 | 52/48 | 49/51 | 51/49 | 49/51 |
| Survival from the 1st to the 5th day of life (%) | 96 | 94 | 98 | 99 | 98 | 99 |
| Number of alive (initial)/number of died | 236/10 | 162/10 | 300/7 | 354/4 | 242/4 | 246/1 |
| Survival from the 6th to the 25th day of life (%) | 81 | 90 | 96 | 95 | 98 | 98 |
| Number of alive (initial)/number of died | 226/44 | 152/15 | 293/12 | 350/19 | 238/4 | 245/5 |
Postnatal development of progeny: reliable sources.
| Recorded indicators | References | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total number of pups | 215 | 133 | 28 | 146 | 135 | >300 |
| Of those – still born | 4 | 5 | 1 | – | 1 | – |
| Mean litter size (M ± SE) | 11.4 ± 0.2 | 11.1 ± 2.0 | 9.5 ± 0.5 | 14.6 ± 0.6 | 12.3 ± 0.1 | 11.67 ± 0.1 |
| Survival from the 1st to the 5th (%) | 97.0 | 96.0 | 99.3 | – | – | 96.8 |
| Survival from the 6th to the 25th (%) | 99.0 | – | 98.6 | – | – | 67.9 |
| Ratio ♂/♀ | 46/54 | 45/55 | – | 48/52 | 47/53 | 47/53 |
Physical development of the pups F0, F1 and F2.
| Recorded indicator | Generation F0 | Generation F1 | Generation F2 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | Test group | Control group | Test group | Control group | Test group | |
| Ear unfolding, day | 2.66 ± 0.08 | 2.71 ± 0.06 | 2.81 ± 0.05 | 2.95 ± 0.04 | 2.86 ± 0.08 | 2.89 ± 0.07 |
| First coat, day | 5.48 ± 0.08 | 5.56 ± 0.13 | 5.31 ± 0.10 | 5.74 ± 0.11 | 5.98 ± 0.07 | 5.76 ± 0.09 |
| Incisor eruption, day | 9.07 ± 0.11 | 9.29 ± 0.13 | 9.25 ± 0.14 | 9.72 ± 0.12 | 9.46 ± 0.04 | 9.59 ± 0.15 |
| Eye opening, day | 15.05 ± 0.09 | 15.26 ± 0.11 | 15.44 ± 0.11 | 15.62 ± 0.14 | 15.18 ± 0.07 | 15.26 ± 0.22 |
| Testicle lowering, day | 23.86 ± 0.11 | 24.00 ± 0.16 | 23.98 ± 0.22 | 23.90 ± 0.18 | 23.72 ± 0.22 | 23.97 ± 0.23 |
| Vagina opening, day | 28.75 ± 0.09 | 28.97 ± 0.10 | 28.73 ± 0.26 | 28.29 ± 0.17 | 28.70 ± 0.12 | 28.83 ± 0.12 |
According to the reliable sources [21], [50], the normal post-natal indicators of Wistar pups physical development are as follows: ear unfolding from 2nd day, first coat from 5th day, incisor eruption from 6th day, eye opening from 12th day, testicle lowering from 18th day, vagina opening from 28th day.
Fig. 4F0 pups body weight and length progress.
Fig. 5F1 pups body weight and length progress.
Fig. 6F2 pups body weight and length progress.