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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Antoniou, Michael N., Mesnage, Robin, Agapito-Tenfen, Sarah, Séralini, Gilles-Eric
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