Broadening the GMO risk assessment in the EU for genome editing technologies in agriculture

被引:33
|
作者
Kawall, Katharina [1 ]
Cotter, Janet [2 ]
Then, Christoph [3 ]
机构
[1] Fachstelle Gentech & Umwelt, Frohschammerstr 14, D-80807 Munich, Germany
[2] Logos Environm, Exeter, Devon, England
[3] Testbiotech, Frohschammerstr 14, D-80807 Munich, Germany
关键词
Genome editing; CRISPR; Cas; Risk assessment; Genetic engineering technology; SDN-1; SDN-2; Off-target effects; Unintended on-target effects; Novel traits; SEQUENCE-SPECIFIC CONTROL; T-DNA; HOMOLOGOUS RECOMBINATION; RHIZOSPHERE MICROBIOME; DIRECTED MUTAGENESIS; TARGET BASE; I-SCEI; RNA; CRISPR/CAS9; PLANTS;
D O I
10.1186/s12302-020-00361-2
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Genome editing techniques, especially the CRISPR/Cas technology, increase the possibilities and the speed of altering genetic material in organisms. So-called genome editing is increasingly being used to achieve agriculturally relevant novel traits and/or genetic combinations in both plants and animals, although predominantly as proof of concept studies, with commercial growing or rearing so far limited to the U.S. and Canada. However, there are numerous reports of unintended effects such as off-target effects, unintended on-target effects and other unintended consequences arising from genome editing, summarised under the term genomic irregularities. Despite this, the searching for genomic irregularities is far from routine in these studies and protocols vary widely, particularly for off-target effects, leading to differences in the efficacy of detection of off-target effects. Here, we describe the range of specific unintended effects associated with genome editing. We examine the considerable possibilities to change the genome of plants and animals with SDN-1 and SDN-2 genome editing (i.e. without the insertion of genes conferring the novel trait) and show that genome editing techniques are able to produce a broad spectrum of novel traits that, thus far, were not possible to be obtained using conventional breeding techniques. We consider that the current EU risk assessment guidance for GMOs requires revision and broadening to capture all potential genomic irregularities arising from genome editing and suggest additional tools to assist the risk assessment of genome-edited plants and animals for the environment and food/animal feed in the EU.
引用
收藏
页数:24
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Broadening the GMO risk assessment in the EU for genome editing technologies in agriculture
    Katharina Kawall
    Janet Cotter
    Christoph Then
    [J]. Environmental Sciences Europe, 2020, 32
  • [2] The GMO debate reloaded - a survey on genome editing in agriculture
    Bechtold, S. N.
    Schleissing, S.
    Duernberger, C.
    [J]. PROFESSIONALS IN FOOD CHAINS, 2018, : 341 - 346
  • [3] Impacts of the EU GMO regulatory framework for plant genome editing
    Hundleby, Penny A. C.
    Harwood, Wendy A.
    [J]. FOOD AND ENERGY SECURITY, 2019, 8 (02):
  • [4] Plant genome editing in the European Union—to be or not to be—a GMO
    Thorben Sprink
    Janina Metje
    Joachim Schiemann
    Frank Hartung
    [J]. Plant Biotechnology Reports, 2016, 10 : 345 - 351
  • [5] Genome editing technologies
    Bhat, S. R.
    [J]. CURRENT SCIENCE, 2017, 112 (07): : 1315 - 1316
  • [6] The evolving landscape around genome editing in agriculture Many countries have exempted or move to exempt forms of genome editing from GMO regulation of crop plants
    Schmidt, Sarah M.
    Belisle, Melinda
    Frommer, Wolf B.
    [J]. EMBO REPORTS, 2020, 21 (06)
  • [7] Genome Editing of the Germline: Broadening the Discussion
    Porteus, Matthew H.
    Dann, Christina T.
    [J]. MOLECULAR THERAPY, 2015, 23 (06) : 979 - 981
  • [8] Genome editing and plant agriculture
    Voytas, Daniel
    [J]. FASEB JOURNAL, 2018, 32 (01):
  • [9] Genome editing and sustainable agriculture
    不详
    [J]. NATURE SUSTAINABILITY, 2024, 7 (04) : 369 - 370
  • [10] EU rethinks genome editing
    [J]. Nature Plants, 2023, 9 : 1169 - 1170