GM Watch
  • Main Menu
    • Home
    • News
      • Newsletter subscription
      • News Reviews
      • News Languages
        • Notícias em Português
        • Nieuws in het Nederlands
        • Nachrichten in Deutsch
      • Archive
    • Articles
      • GM Myth Makers
      • GM Reports
      • GM Quotes
      • GM Myths
      • Non-GM successes
      • GM Firms
        • Monsanto: a history
        • Monsanto: resources
        • Bayer: a history
        • Bayer: resources
    • Videos
      • Latest Videos
      • Must see videos
      • Agriculture videos
      • Labeling videos
      • Animals videos
      • Corporations videos
      • Corporate takeover videos
      • Contamination videos
      • Latin America videos
      • India videos
      • Asia videos
      • Food safety videos
      • Songs videos
      • Protests videos
      • Biofuel myths videos
      • Index of GM crops and foods
      • Index of speakers
      • Health Effects
    • Contact
    • About
    • Donations
News and comment on genetically modified foods and their associated pesticides    
  • News
    • Newsletter subscription
    • News Reviews
    • News Languages
      • Notícias em Português
      • Nieuws in het Nederlands
      • Nachrichten in Deutsch
    • Archive
      • 2022 articles
  • Articles
    • GM Myth Makers
    • GM Reports
    • GM Quotes
    • GM Myths
    • Non-GM successes
    • GM Firms
      • Monsanto: a history
      • Monsanto: resources
      • Bayer: a history
      • Bayer: resources
  • Donations
  • Videos
    • Index of speakers
    • Glyphosate Videos
    • Latest Videos
    • Must see videos
    • Health Effects
    • Agriculture videos
    • Labeling videos
    • Animals videos
    • Corporations videos
    • Corporate takeover videos
    • Contamination videos
    • Latin America videos
    • India videos
    • Asia videos
    • Food safety videos
    • Songs videos
    • Protests videos
    • Biofuel myths videos
    • Index of GM crops and foods
  • Contact
  • About
SUBSCRIBE TO REVIEWS

GMWatch Facebook cornfield banner

INTRODUCTION TO GM

GMO Myths and Facts front page.jpg

SCIENCE SUPPORTS REGULATION OF GENE EDITING

Plant tissue cultures

GENE EDITING: UNEXPECTED OUTCOMES AND RISKS

Damaged DNA on fire

GENE EDITING MYTHS AND REALITY

A guide through the smokescreen

Gene Editing Myths and Reality

ON-TARGET EFFECTS OF GENE EDITING

Damaged DNA

News Menu

  • Latest News
  • News Reviews
  • Archive
  • Languages

News Archive

  • 2023 articles
  • 2022 articles
  • 2021 articles
  • 2020 articles
  • 2019 articles
  • 2018 articles
  • 2017 articles
  • 2016 articles
  • 2015 articles
  • 2014 articles
  • 2013 articles
  • 2012 articles
  • 2011 articles
  • 2010 articles
  • 2009 articles
  • 2008 articles
  • 2007 articles
  • 2006 articles
  • 2005 articles
  • 2004 articles
  • 2003 articles
  • 2002 articles
  • 2001 articles
  • 2000 articles

Please support GMWatch

Donations

You can donate via Paypal or credit/debit card.

Some of you have opted to give a regular donation. This is greatly appreciated as it helps place us on a more stable financial basis. Thank you for your support!

New GE wheat to be tested in UK field trials

  • Print
  • Email
Details
Published: 08 September 2021
Twitter

CRISPR plants reveal the complex risks of genome editing, reports Testbiotech

Genetically engineered (GE) wheat with a supposedly reduced concentration of acrylamide after baking is to be tested in field trials in the UK. Scientists there have successfully used CRISPR/Cas to block a gene function involved in production of the amino acid asparagine, which is important for the concentration of acrylamide after baking.

However, as reported by Testbiotech, asparagine is also involved in seed germination, the growth of the plants, their stress responses and disease defences. As scientific publications show, the risks are complex and need to be assessed in detail.

The field trials are being organised by Rothamsted Research. Using CRISPR/Cas, their scientists succeeded in reducing the concentration of free asparagine available in the kernels by up to 90 percent. They did this by knocking out several copies (alleles) of a gene (TaASN2-Gen). However, it was found that some lines of this CRISPR wheat almost lost capacity to germinate. The scientists are therefore planning to also grow a version of the wheat in the trials in which fewer copies of the gene have been knocked out.

For comparison purposes they are also planning to grow a conventionally bred wheat showing some genetic alterations (mutations). The pattern of genetic changes in this particular wheat is very different to the genotype of the CRISPR wheat, and the content of asparagine is reduced to a lesser degree.

The genetically engineered plants also show some unintended characteristics since the concentration of several amino acids was unintentionally changed. Furthermore, the concentration of asparagine in the GE plants fluctuates significantly. Therefore, says Testbiotech, more research is needed to determine whether additional unintended effects were caused in the metabolism of the plants. This should include taking all the steps of the genetic engineering process into account.

The first step consisted of introducing the DNA for the gene scissors and an additional gene for herbicide resistance into the plant genome. This was done using a so-called gene cannon (biolistic method). This method is used in "Old GE" and is known to frequently cause unintended changes in the genome. The additionally inserted genes are meant to be removed from the plants through further breeding. Nevertheless, even if this is successful, the genome still needs to be screened for further unintended genetic changes caused by the gene cannon.

Gene scissors also cause unwanted effects associated with risks to health and the environment, such as the insertion of additional DNA in the target region of the genome and production of erroneous proteins. A recent publication describes these on-target effects in detail. However, so far, changes in other sites of the genome (off-target) which can be caused by lack of precision of the gene scissors have not been investigated.

The whole genome of the plants would need to be screened in order to identify all these unintended effects. However, this is a complex undertaking due to the huge size of the wheat genome. Therefore, Rothamsted Research can in no way be sure that the CRISPR wheat only inherits the intended genetic changes. In addition, it is not known how the wheat will react to environmental stress, how it will interact with ecosystems or if it may be safe for consumption and the environment.

Testbiotech concludes that this GE wheat clearly shows how complicated the assessment of the specific risks can be that are caused by the processes of New GE. Without detailed examination, no conclusion can be drawn on safety of the plants. Nevertheless, contrary to all findings, industry is demanding that GE plants should be exempted from detailed risk assessment as long as no additional genes are inherited.


Source and further information: Testbiotech
https://www.testbiotech.org/en/news/new-ge-wheat-be-tested-uk-field-trials

Menu

Home

Subscriptions

News Archive

News Reviews

Videos

Articles

GM Myth Makers

GM Reports

GM Myths

GM Quotes

Non-GM Successes

Contacts

Contact Us

About

Facebook

Twitter

Donations

Content 1999 - 2023 GMWatch.
Web Development By SCS Web Design