Paulien Adamse1, Emilie Dagand2, Karen Bohmert-Tatarev2,3, Daniela Wahler2, Manoela Miranda4,5, Esther J Kok6, Joachim Bendiek2,7. 1. Wageningen Food Safety Research (WFSR), PO Box 230, 6700 AE, Wageningen, Netherlands. paulien.adamse@wur.nl. 2. Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety, PO Box 11 02 60, 10832, Berlin, Germany. 3. Yield10 Bioscience, Inc., 19 Presidential Way, Woburn, MA, 01801, USA. 4. Secretariat of the Convention On Biological Diversity, 413 Saint-Jacques Street, Suite 800, Montreal, QC, H2Y 1N9, Canada. 5. United Nations Environment Programme, Pacific Office, Avele Road, Vailima, Samoa. 6. Wageningen Food Safety Research (WFSR), PO Box 230, 6700 AE, Wageningen, Netherlands. 7. Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Wilhelmstr. 54, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Various databases on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) exist, all with their specific focus to facilitate access to information needed for, e. g., the assistance in risk assessment, the development of detection and identification strategies or inspection and control activities. Each database has its unique approach towards the subject. Often these databases use different terminology to describe the GMOs. For adequate GMO addressing and identification and exchange of GMO-related information it is necessary to use commonly agreed upon concepts and terminology. RESULT: A hierarchically structured controlled vocabulary describing the genetic elements inserted into conventional GMOs, and GMOs developed by the use of gen(om)e-editing is presented: the GMO genetic element thesaurus (GMO-GET). GMO-GET can be used for GMO-related documentation, including GMO-related databases. It has initially been developed on the basis of two GMO databases, i.e. the Biosafety Clearing-House and the EUginius database. CONCLUSION: The use of GMO-GET will enable consistent and compatible information (harmonisation), also allowing an accurate exchange of information between the different data systems and thereby facilitating their interoperability. GMO-GET can also be used to describe genetic elements that are altered in organisms obtained through current targeted genome-editing techniques.
BACKGROUND: Various databases on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) exist, all with their specific focus to facilitate access to information needed for, e. g., the assistance in risk assessment, the development of detection and identification strategies or inspection and control activities. Each database has its unique approach towards the subject. Often these databases use different terminology to describe the GMOs. For adequate GMO addressing and identification and exchange of GMO-related information it is necessary to use commonly agreed upon concepts and terminology. RESULT: A hierarchically structured controlled vocabulary describing the genetic elements inserted into conventional GMOs, and GMOs developed by the use of gen(om)e-editing is presented: the GMO genetic element thesaurus (GMO-GET). GMO-GET can be used for GMO-related documentation, including GMO-related databases. It has initially been developed on the basis of two GMO databases, i.e. the Biosafety Clearing-House and the EUginius database. CONCLUSION: The use of GMO-GET will enable consistent and compatible information (harmonisation), also allowing an accurate exchange of information between the different data systems and thereby facilitating their interoperability. GMO-GET can also be used to describe genetic elements that are altered in organisms obtained through current targeted genome-editing techniques.
Authors: M Ashburner; C A Ball; J A Blake; D Botstein; H Butler; J M Cherry; A P Davis; K Dolinski; S S Dwight; J T Eppig; M A Harris; D P Hill; L Issel-Tarver; A Kasarskis; S Lewis; J C Matese; J E Richardson; M Ringwald; G M Rubin; G Sherlock Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Michal Galdzicki; Kevin P Clancy; Ernst Oberortner; Matthew Pocock; Jacqueline Y Quinn; Cesar A Rodriguez; Nicholas Roehner; Mandy L Wilson; Laura Adam; J Christopher Anderson; Bryan A Bartley; Jacob Beal; Deepak Chandran; Joanna Chen; Douglas Densmore; Drew Endy; Raik Grünberg; Jennifer Hallinan; Nathan J Hillson; Jeffrey D Johnson; Allan Kuchinsky; Matthew Lux; Goksel Misirli; Jean Peccoud; Hector A Plahar; Evren Sirin; Guy-Bart Stan; Alan Villalobos; Anil Wipat; John H Gennari; Chris J Myers; Herbert M Sauro Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2014-06-06 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: Pankaj Jaiswal; Shulamit Avraham; Katica Ilic; Elizabeth A Kellogg; Susan McCouch; Anuradha Pujar; Leonore Reiser; Seung Y Rhee; Martin M Sachs; Mary Schaeffer; Lincoln Stein; Peter Stevens; Leszek Vincent; Doreen Ware; Felipe Zapata Journal: Comp Funct Genomics Date: 2005
Authors: Theo W Prins; Jeroen P van Dijk; Henriek G Beenen; Am Angeline Van Hoef; Marleen M Voorhuijzen; Cor D Schoen; Henk J M Aarts; Esther J Kok Journal: BMC Genomics Date: 2008-12-04 Impact factor: 3.969