Cargando…
Reply to ‘Comments on two recent publications on GM maize and Roundup’
The opinion expressed by Eriksson and colleagues’ fails to recognise that there are no standard experimental designs for academic investigations involving omics analyses of genetically modified crops and that the only valid comparator to determine the effect of the process of transgenesis is a near...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6120931/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30177789 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-30751-9 |
_version_ | 1783352352588169216 |
---|---|
author | Antoniou, Michael N. Mesnage, Robin Agapito-Tenfen, Sarah Séralini, Gilles-Eric |
author_facet | Antoniou, Michael N. Mesnage, Robin Agapito-Tenfen, Sarah Séralini, Gilles-Eric |
author_sort | Antoniou, Michael N. |
collection | PubMed |
description | The opinion expressed by Eriksson and colleagues’ fails to recognise that there are no standard experimental designs for academic investigations involving omics analyses of genetically modified crops and that the only valid comparator to determine the effect of the process of transgenesis is a near isogenic variety grown at the same time and location, as was the case in our investigation of NK603 maize. Eriksson does not acknowledge that the quality of the rat liver tissues in our chronic Roundup toxicity study has neither been questioned nor branded as unsuitable for further investigation. In addition, Eriksson fails to appreciate that the statistical methods we used to analyse the liver metabolomics dataset are recognised as appropriate as some of a number of approaches that can be taken. Moreover, Eriksson neglects to mention that the proteomics analysis of the liver tissues highlights structural and functional damage from Roundup exposure. Thus our results are sound and the claims by Eriksson and colleagues of experimental flaws are unfounded.Replying to: Eriksson et al. Sci Rep 8 (2018); 10.1038/s41598-018-30440-7. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6120931 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-61209312018-09-06 Reply to ‘Comments on two recent publications on GM maize and Roundup’ Antoniou, Michael N. Mesnage, Robin Agapito-Tenfen, Sarah Séralini, Gilles-Eric Sci Rep Article The opinion expressed by Eriksson and colleagues’ fails to recognise that there are no standard experimental designs for academic investigations involving omics analyses of genetically modified crops and that the only valid comparator to determine the effect of the process of transgenesis is a near isogenic variety grown at the same time and location, as was the case in our investigation of NK603 maize. Eriksson does not acknowledge that the quality of the rat liver tissues in our chronic Roundup toxicity study has neither been questioned nor branded as unsuitable for further investigation. In addition, Eriksson fails to appreciate that the statistical methods we used to analyse the liver metabolomics dataset are recognised as appropriate as some of a number of approaches that can be taken. Moreover, Eriksson neglects to mention that the proteomics analysis of the liver tissues highlights structural and functional damage from Roundup exposure. Thus our results are sound and the claims by Eriksson and colleagues of experimental flaws are unfounded.Replying to: Eriksson et al. Sci Rep 8 (2018); 10.1038/s41598-018-30440-7. Nature Publishing Group UK 2018-09-03 /pmc/articles/PMC6120931/ /pubmed/30177789 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-30751-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Article Antoniou, Michael N. Mesnage, Robin Agapito-Tenfen, Sarah Séralini, Gilles-Eric Reply to ‘Comments on two recent publications on GM maize and Roundup’ |
title | Reply to ‘Comments on two recent publications on GM maize and Roundup’ |
title_full | Reply to ‘Comments on two recent publications on GM maize and Roundup’ |
title_fullStr | Reply to ‘Comments on two recent publications on GM maize and Roundup’ |
title_full_unstemmed | Reply to ‘Comments on two recent publications on GM maize and Roundup’ |
title_short | Reply to ‘Comments on two recent publications on GM maize and Roundup’ |
title_sort | reply to ‘comments on two recent publications on gm maize and roundup’ |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6120931/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30177789 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-30751-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT antonioumichaeln replytocommentsontworecentpublicationsongmmaizeandroundup AT mesnagerobin replytocommentsontworecentpublicationsongmmaizeandroundup AT agapitotenfensarah replytocommentsontworecentpublicationsongmmaizeandroundup AT seralinigilleseric replytocommentsontworecentpublicationsongmmaizeandroundup |