Literature DB >> 31321696

Problem formulation and phenotypic characterisation for the development of novel crops.

Alan Raybould1.   

Abstract

Phenotypic characterisation provides important information about novel crops that helps their developers to make technical and commercial decisions. Phenotypic characterisation comprises two activities. Product characterisation checks that the novel crop has the qualities of a viable product-the intended traits have been introduced and work as expected, and no unintended changes have been made that will adversely affect the performance of the final product. Risk assessment evaluates whether the intended and unintended changes are likely to harm human health or the environment. Product characterisation follows the principles of problem formulation, namely that the characteristics required in the final product are defined and criteria to decide whether the novel crop will have these properties are set. The hypothesis that the novel crop meets the criteria are tested during product development. If the hypothesis is corroborated, development continues, and if the hypothesis is falsified, the product is redesigned or its development is halted. Risk assessment should follow the same principles. Criteria that indicate the crop poses unacceptable risk should be set, and the hypothesis that the crop does not possess those properties should be tested. However, risk assessment, particularly when considering unintended changes introduced by new plant breeding methods such as gene editing, often ignores these principles. Instead, phenotypic characterisation seeks to catalogue all unintended changes by profiling methods and then proceeds to work out whether any of the changes are important. This paper argues that profiling is an inefficient and ineffective method of phenotypic characterisation for risk assessment. It discusses reasons why profiling is favoured and corrects some misconceptions about problem formulation.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Decision-making; Hypothesis testing; Plant breeding; Product characterisation; Profiling; Risk assessment

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31321696     DOI: 10.1007/s11248-019-00147-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Transgenic Res        ISSN: 0962-8819            Impact factor:   2.788


  48 in total

Review 1.  Improving plant breeding with exotic genetic libraries.

Authors:  D Zamir
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 53.242

Review 2.  Comparative safety assessment for biotech crops.

Authors:  Esther J Kok; Harry A Kuiper
Journal:  Trends Biotechnol       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 19.536

Review 3.  Drought tolerance through biotechnology: improving translation from the laboratory to farmers' fields.

Authors:  Jill Deikman; Marie Petracek; Jacqueline E Heard
Journal:  Curr Opin Biotechnol       Date:  2011-12-09       Impact factor: 9.740

Review 4.  General principles for risk assessment of living modified organisms: lessons from chemical risk assessment.

Authors:  Ryan A Hill; Cyrie Sendashonga
Journal:  Environ Biosafety Res       Date:  2003 Apr-Jun

Review 5.  Plant Phenomics, From Sensors to Knowledge.

Authors:  François Tardieu; Llorenç Cabrera-Bosquet; Tony Pridmore; Malcolm Bennett
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2017-08-07       Impact factor: 10.834

6.  EU verdict on CRISPR crops dismays scientists.

Authors:  Kai Kupferschmidt
Journal:  Science       Date:  2018-08-03       Impact factor: 47.728

7.  Plant characterization of Roundup Ready 2 Yield ® soybean, MON 89788, for use in ecological risk assessment.

Authors:  Michael J Horak; Eric W Rosenbaum; Daniel L Kendrick; Bernard Sammons; Samuel L Phillips; Thomas E Nickson; Raymond C Dobert; Tim Perez
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2014-09-24       Impact factor: 2.788

8.  A global observatory for gene editing.

Authors:  Sheila Jasanoff; J Benjamin Hurlbut
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2018-03-22       Impact factor: 49.962

9.  Transgene x environment interactions in genetically modified wheat.

Authors:  Simon L Zeller; Olena Kalinina; Susanne Brunner; Beat Keller; Bernhard Schmid
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-07-12       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Policy-Led Comparative Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Crops: Testing for Increased Risk Rather Than Profiling Phenotypes Leads to Predictable and Transparent Decision-Making.

Authors:  Alan Raybould; Phil Macdonald
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2018-04-10
View more
  4 in total

1.  Meeting report of the OECD conference on "Genome Editing: Applications in Agriculture-Implications for Health, Environment and Regulation".

Authors:  Steffi Friedrichs; Yoko Takasu; Peter Kearns; Bertrand Dagallier; Ryudai Oshima; Janet Schofield; Catherine Moreddu
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 2.788

2.  Obligatory metabolomic profiling of gene-edited crops is risk disproportionate.

Authors:  Maria Fedorova; Rod A Herman
Journal:  Plant J       Date:  2020-07-20       Impact factor: 6.417

3.  Transparency in risk-disproportionate regulation of modern crop-breeding techniques.

Authors:  Rod A Herman; Nicholas P Storer; Jennifer A Anderson; Firoz Amijee; Filip Cnudde; Alan Raybould
Journal:  GM Crops Food       Date:  2021-01-02       Impact factor: 3.074

4.  Improving the politics of biotechnological innovations in food security and other sustainable development goals.

Authors:  Alan Raybould
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2021-08-05       Impact factor: 2.788

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.