Safety Assessment of the CP4 EPSPS and NPTII Proteins in Eucalyptus

References

• Barua SK, Lehtonen P, & Pahkasalo T. Plantation vision: potentials, challenges and policy options for global industrial forest plantation development. Int Forest Rev. 2014;16(2):117–27. doi:10.1505/146554814811724801.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FAO. 2020. “Global forest resources assessment, 2020: main report.Rome.”
   Google Scholar
• Wen YG, Zhou XG, Yu SF, Zhu HG. The predicament and countermeasures of development of global Eucalyptus plantations. Guangxi Sci. 2018;25:107–16.
   Google Scholar
• da Silva PHM, Poggiani F, Libardi PL, Gonçalves AN. Fertilizer management of eucalypt plantations on sandy soil in Brazil: initial growth and nutrient cycling. For Ecol Manage. 2013;301:67–78. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2012.10.033.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poschenrieder C, Gunsé B, Corrales I, Barceló J. A glance into aluminum toxicity and resistance in plants. Sci Total Environ. 2008;400(1–3):356–68. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.06.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramantswana M, Guerra SPS, Ersson BT. Advances in the mechanization of regenerating plantation forests: a review. Current For Rep. 2020;6(2):143–58. doi:10.1007/s40725-020-00114-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaiton S, Sheriza MR, Ainishifaa R, Alfred K, Norfaryanti K. Eucalyptus in Malaysia: review on environmental impacts. J Landsc Ecol. 2020;13(2):79–94. doi:10.2478/jlecol-2020-0011.
   Google Scholar
• Zegeye H. Environmental and socio-economic implications of Eucalyptus in Ethiopia. Ethiop Inst Agric Res. 2010;184–205.
   Google Scholar
• Coelho AJP, Villa PM, Matos FAR, Heringer G, Bueno ML, de Paula Almado R, Meira-Neto JAA. Atlantic forest recovery after long-term eucalyptus plantations: the role of zoochoric and shade-tolerant tree species on carbon stock. For Ecol Manage. 2022;503:119789. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119789.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grossberg SP. Forest management. Hauppauge, New York, United States: Nova Science Publishers; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Sembiring N, Napitupulu HL, Sipahutar AI, Sembiring MT. A review of sustainable replanting eucalyptus: higher sustainable productivity. IOP Conf Ser: Mater Sci Eng. 2020;935(1):012068. IOP Publishing. doi:10.1088/1757-899X/935/1/012068.
   Google Scholar
• Reddy C. A study on crop weed competition in field crops. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2018;7:3235–40.
   Google Scholar
• Jaworski EG. Mode of action of N-phosphonomethylglycine. Inhibition of aromatic amino acid biosynthsis. J Agr Food Chem. 1972;20(6):1195–98. doi:10.1021/jf60184a057.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Padgette SR, Kolacz KH, Delannay X, Re DB, LaVallee BJ, Tinius CN, Rhodes WK, Otero YI, Barry GF, Eichholtz DA, et al. Development, identification, and characterization of a glyphosate‐tolerant soybean line. Crop Sci. 1995;35(5):1451–61. doi:10.2135/cropsci1995.0011183X003500050032x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Junior WRC, da Costa YKS, Carbonari CA, Duke SO, Alves PLDCA, de Carvalho LB. Growth, morphological, metabolic and photosynthetic responses of clones of eucalyptus to glyphosate. For Ecol Manage. 2020;470:118218.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pereira FCM, Nepomuceno MP, Pires RN, Parreira MC, Alves PLDCA. Response of eucalyptus (Eucalyptus urograndis) plants at different doses of glyphosate. J Agric Sci. 2013;5(1):66. doi:10.5539/jas.v5n1p66.
   Google Scholar
• Barry G, Kishore G, Padgette S, Taylor M, Kolacz K, Weldon M, Re D, Eichholtz D, Fincher K, Hallas L. Inhibitors of amino acid biosynthesis: strategies for imparting glyphosate tolerance to crop plants. Current topics in plant physiology (USA). 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Sammons RD, Gaines TA. Glyphosate resistance: state of knowledge. Pest Manag Sci. 2014;70(9):1367–77. doi:10.1002/ps.3743.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beck E, Ludwig G, Auerswald EA, Reiss B, Schaller H. Nucleotide sequence and exact localization of the neomycin phosphotransferase gene from transposon Tn5. Gene. 1982;19(3):327–36. doi:10.1016/0378-1119(82)90023-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toth M, Zajicek J, Kim C, Chow JW, Smith C, Mobashery S, Vakulenko S. Kinetic mechanism of enterococcal aminoglycoside phosphotransferase 2 ‘‘-Ib. Biochemistry. 2007;46(18):5570–78. doi:10.1021/bi6024512.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mall T, Gupta M, Dhadialla TS, Rodrigo S. Overview of biotechnology-derived herbicide tolerance and insect resistance traits in plant agriculture. Transgenic Plants: methods and protocols. 2019;313–42.
   Google Scholar
• de Mello EJ, Pinheiro AC. proposta para liberação comercial do eucalipto 751k032. In: CIBio Suzano S.A. (FuturaGene –Divisão de Biotecnologia) CQB 0325/11. Brazil: Itapetininga-SP; 2021.
   Google Scholar
• dos Santos CF, Ramos JD, de Carvalho FG, Dorneles AL, Menezes TR, Pinheiro AC, Blochtein B. Survivorship and food consumption of immatures and adults of Apis mellifera and Scaptotrigona bipunctata exposed to genetically modified eucalyptus pollen. Transgenic Res. 2023;32(3):1–13. doi:10.1007/s11248-023-00343-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD. Consensus document on general information concerning the genes and their enzymes that confer tolerance of glyphosate herbicide. Series on Harmonization of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology No. 10. 1999.
   Google Scholar
• ILSI RF. A review of the food and feed safety of the EPSPS protein. Fonte. 2016. (Dezembro de. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.15073.10081.
   Google Scholar
• EFSA (2007). Statement on the safe use of the nptII antibiotic resistance marker gene in genetically modified plants by the scientific panel on genetically modified organisms (GMO). https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2007.742
   Google Scholar
• Brown RD. Funnel for extraction of leaf litter organisms. Ann Entomol Soc Am. 1973;66(2):485–86. doi:10.1093/aesa/66.2.485.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besuchet C, Burckhardt DH, Löbl I. The” Winkler/Moczarski“eclector as an efficient extractor for fungus and litter Coleoptera. The Coleopterists’ Bulletin. 1987;392–94.
   Google Scholar
• Sabu TK, Shiju RT, Vinod KV, Nithya S. A comparison of the pitfall trap, Winkler extractor and Berlese funnel for sampling ground-dwelling arthropods in tropical montane cloud forests. J Insect Sci. 2011;11(28):1–19. doi:10.1673/031.011.0128.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Amplicon PCR. 16s metagenomic sequencing library preparation. San Diego, CA, USA: Illumina; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Heeger F, Wurzbacher C, Bourne EC, Mazzoni CJ, Monaghan MT. Combining the 5.8 S and ITS2 to improve classification of fungi. Methods Ecol Evol. 2019;10(10):1702–11. doi:10.1111/2041-210X.13266.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richa B, Grimm DG. Current challenges and best-practice protocols for microbiome analysis. Brief Bioinform. 2021;22(1):178–93. doi:10.1093/bib/bbz155.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, Bittinger K, Bushman FD, Costello EK, Knight R, Peña AG, Goodrich JK, Gordon JI. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat Methods. 2010;7(5):335–36. doi:10.1038/nmeth.f.303.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, Glöckner FO, Glöckner FO. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Research. 2012;41(D1):D590–D96. doi:10.1093/nar/gks1219.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD. Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Paleontologia Electronica. 2001;4:1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Podani J, Miklós I. Resemblance coefficients and the horseshoe effect in principal coordinates analysis. Ecology. 2002;83(12):3331–43. doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[3331:RCATHE]2.0.CO;2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alimentarius C. Foods derived from modern biotechnology. Rome: Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Pearson WR. Rapid and sensitive sequence comparison with FASTP and FASTA. Methods Enzymol. 1990;183:63–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altschul SF, Madden TL, Schäffer AA, Zhang J, Zhang Z, Miller W, Lipman DJ. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res. 1997;25(17):3389–402. doi:10.1093/nar/25.17.3389.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearson WR. Flexible sequence similarity searching with the FASTA3 program package. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Fu TJ, Abbott UR, Hatzos C. Digestibility of food allergens and nonallergenic proteins in simulated gastric fluid and simulated intestinal fluid a comparative study. J Agr Food Chem. 2002;50(24):7154–60. doi:10.1021/jf020599h.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• In TS. The United States pharmacopoeia 23, the national formulary 18. In: United States pharmacopoeial convention. Rockville, MD; 1955.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas K, Aalbers M, Bannon GA, Bartels M, Dearman RJ, Esdaile DJ, Fu TJ, Glatt CM, Hadfield N, Hatzos C, et al. A multi-laboratory evaluation of a common in vitro pepsin digestion assay protocol used in assessing the safety of novel proteins. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2004;39(2):87–98. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2003.11.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison LA, Bailey MR, Naylor MW, Ream JE, Hammond BG, Nida DL, Burnette BL, Nickson TE, Mitsky TA, Taylor ML, et al. The expressed protein in glyphosate-tolerant soybean, 5-enolypyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4, is rapidly digested in vitro and is not toxic to acutely gavaged mice. J Nutr. 1996;126(3):728–40. doi:10.1093/jn/126.3.728.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Board of Trustees. Simulated gastric fluid and simulated intestinal fluid. In: The United States pharmacopeia 23, the national formulary 18. Rockville, MD: United States Pharmacopeial Convention, Inc; 1995. p. 2053.
   Google Scholar
• Marblestone JG, Edavettal SC, Lim Y, Lim P, Zuo XUN, Butt TR. Comparison of SUMO fusion technology with traditional gene fusion systems: enhanced expression and solubility with SUMO. Protein Science. 2006;15(1):182–89. doi:10.1110/ps.051812706.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ladics GS. Current codex guidelines for assessment of potential protein allergenicity. Food Chem Toxicol. 2008;46(10):S20–S23. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2008.07.021.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuchs RL, Ream JE, Hammond BG, Naylor MW, Leimgruber RM, Berberich SA. Safety assessment of the neomycin phosphotransferase II (NPTII) protein. Bio/Technology. 1993;11(12):1543–47. doi:10.1038/nbt1293-1543.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• OECD. Safety assessment of transgenic organisms in the environment, Volume 6: oECD consensus documents. In: Harmonisation of regulatory oversight in biotechnology. OECD Publishing; 2016. Paris. doi:10.1787/9789264253421-en.
   Google Scholar
• Chinnadurai P, Stojšin D, Liu K, Frierdich GE, Glenn KC, Geng T, Schapaugh A, Huang K, Deffenbaugh AE, Liu ZL, et al. Variability of CP4 EPSPS expression in genetically engineered soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill). Transgenic Res. 2018;27(6):511–24. doi:10.1007/s11248-018-0092-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naegeli H, Bresson JL, Dalmay T, Dewhurst IC, Epstein MM, Firbank LG, Guerche P, Hejatko J, Moreno FJ, Mullins E. EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). Assessment of genetically modified maize MON 87427 3 MON 87460 3 MON 89034 3 MIR162 3 NK603 and subcombinations, for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2016-134). EFSA J. 2019;17 8 e05774 .
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paoletti MG. Invertebrate biodiversity as bioindicators of sustainable landscapes: practical use of invertebrates to assess sustainable land use. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang H, Luo G, Wang Y, Fei J, Xiangmin R, Peng J, Tian C, Zhang Y. Crop rotation-driven change in physicochemical properties regulates microbial diversity, dominant components, and community complexity in paddy soils. Agr Ecosyst Environ. 2023;343:108278. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2022.108278.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar