1932

Abstract

This review describes the current status and future challenges of risk assessment and regulation of plants modified by modern biotechniques, namely genetic engineering and genome editing. It provides a general overview of the biosafety and regulation of genetically modified plants and details different regulatory frameworks with a focus on the European situation. The environmental risk and safety assessment of genetically modified plants is explained, and aspects of toxicological assessments are discussed, especially the controversial debate in Europe on the added scientific value of untargeted animal feeding studies. Because RNA interference (RNAi) is increasingly explored for commercial applications, the risk and safety assessment of RNAi-based genetically modified plants is also elucidated. The production, detection, and identification of genome-edited plants are described. Recent applications of modern biotechniques, namely synthetic biology and gene drives, are discussed, and a short outlook on the future follows.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-arplant-050718-100025
2019-04-29
2024-05-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/arplant/70/1/annurev-arplant-050718-100025.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-arplant-050718-100025&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1.  Alburquerque N, Petri C, Faize L, Burgos L 2012. A short-length single chimeric transgene induces simultaneous silencing of Agrobacteriumtumefaciens oncogenes and resistance to crown gall. Plant Pathol 61:1073–81
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2.  Athma P, Peterson T 1991. Ac induces homologous recombination at the maize P locus. Genetics 128:163–73
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3.  Axtell MJ 2013. Classification and comparison of small RNAs from plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 64:137–59
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4.  Bachman PM, Bolognesi R, Moar WJ, Mueller GM, Paradise MS et al. 2013. Characterization of the spectrum of insecticidal activity of a double-stranded RNA with targeted activity against Western Corn Rootworm (Diabroticavirgiferavirgifera LeConte). Transgenic Res 22:1207–22
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5.  Bachman PM, Huizinga KM, Jensen PD, Mueller G, Tan J et al. 2016. Ecological risk assessment for DvSnf7 RNA: a plant-incorporated protectant with targeted activity against western corn rootworm. Reg. Tox. Pharm. 81:77–88
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6.  Baulcombe D 2004. RNA silencing in plants. Nature 431:356–63
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7.  Beetham PR, Kipp PB, Sawycky XL, Arntzen CJ, May GD 1999. A tool for functional plant genomics: Chimeric RNA/DNA oligonucleotides cause in vivo gene-specific mutations. PNAS 96:8774–78
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8.  Borges F, Martienssen RA 2015. The expanding world of small RNAs in plants. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 16:727–41
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 9.  Brodersen P, Sakvarelidze-Achard L, Bruun-Rasmussen M, Dunoyer P, Yamamoto YY et al. 2008. Widespread translational inhibition by plant miRNAs and siRNAs. Science 320:1185–90
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10.  Bujnicki J, Dykstra P, Wegener H 2017. New techniques in agricultural biotechnology High Level Group Sci. Adv Explan. Note 02, European Commission Brussels, Belg: https://ec.europa.eu/research/sam/pdf/topics/explanatory_note_new_techniques_agricultural_biotechnology.pdf
  11. 11.  Burachik M, Traynor PL 2002. Analysis of a national biosafety system: regulatory policies and procedures in Argentina ISNAR Ctry. Rep. 63, Int. Serv Natl. Agric. Res: The Hague, Neth.
  12. 12.  Burt A, Trivers R 2009. Genes in Conflict: The Biology of Selfish Genetic Elements Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  13. 13.  Casacuberta JM, Devos Y, du Jardin P, Ramon M, Vaucheret H, Nogué F 2015. Biotechnological uses of RNAi in plants: risk assessment considerations. Trends Biotechnol 33:145–47
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 14. CAST (Counc. Agric. Sci. Technol.). 2018. Genome editing in agriculture: methods, applications, and governance. The Need for Agricultural Innovation to Sustainably Feed the World by 2050 Issue Pap. 60 Ames, Iowa: Counc. Agric. Sci. Technol.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 15. CFIA (Can. Food Inspect. Agency). 2018. Guidelines for the assessment of novel feeds: plant sources. Canadian Food Inspection Agency http://www.inspection.gc.ca/animals/feeds/regulatory-guidance/rg-1/chapter-2/eng/1329298059609/1329298179464?chap=6
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16. CFIA (Can. Food Inspect. Agency). 2018. Plants with novel traits. Canadian Food Inspection Agency http://www.inspection.gc.ca/plants/plants-with-novel-traits/eng/1300137887237/1300137939635
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17.  Collins JP, Heitman E, Achee NL, Chandler V, Delborne JA et al. 2016. Gene Drives on the Horizon: Advancing Science, Navigating Uncertainty, and Aligning Research with Public Values . Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  18. 18. Court Justice Eur. Union. 2017. Member States may not adopt emergency measures regarding genetically modified food and feed unless it is evident that there is a serious risk to health or the environment Press Release 96/17, Sept. 13
  19. 19. Court Justice Eur. Union. 2018. According to Advocate General Bobek, organisms obtained by mutagenesis are, in principle, exempted from the obligations in the Genetically Modified Organisms Directive Press Release 04/18, Jan. 18
  20. 20. Court Justice Eur. Union. 2018. Organisms obtained by mutagenesis are GMOs and are, in principle, subject to the obligations laid down by the GMO Directive Press Release 111/18, July 25
  21. 21.  Custers R, Casacuberta JM, Eriksson D, Sági L, Schiemann J 2019. Genetic alterations that do or do not occur naturally; consequences for genome edited organisms in the context of regulatory oversight. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 6:213
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22.  de Lange O, Klavins E, Nemhauser J 2018. Synthetic genetic circuits in crop plants. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 49:16–22
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.  de Pater S, Neuteboom LW, Pinas JE, Hooykaas PJJ, van der Zaal BJ 2009. ZFN-induced mutagenesis and gene-targeting in Arabidopsis through Agrobacterium-mediated floral dip transformation. Plant Biotechnol. J. 7:821–35
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24.  De Schrijver A, Devos Y, De Clercq P, Gathmann A, Romeis J 2016. Quality of laboratory studies assessing effects of Bt-proteins on non-target organisms: minimal criteria for acceptability. Transgenic Res 25:395–411
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 25.  Devos Y, Craig W, Schiemann J 2012. Transgenic crops, risk assessment and regulatory framework in the European Union. Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology RA Meyers 10765–96 New York: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 26.  Devos Y, Romeis J, Luttik R, Maggiore A, Perry JN et al. 2015. Optimising environmental risk assessments: Accounting for ecosystem services helps to translate broad policy protection goals into specific operational ones for environmental risk assessments. EMBO Rep 16:1060–63
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27.  Devos Y, Sanvido O, Tait J, Raybould A 2014. Towards a more open debate about values in decision-making on agricultural biotechnology. Transgenic Res 23:933–43
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28.  Dietz-Pfeilstetter A, Arndt N, Manske U 2016. Effects of a petunia scaffold/matrix attachment region on copy number dependency and stability of transgene expression in Nicotianatabacum. Transgenic Res 25:149–62
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29.  Duan JJ, Lundgren JG, Naranjo SE, Marvier M 2010. Extrapolating non-target risk of Bt crops from laboratory to field. Biol. Lett. 6:74–77
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 30.  Dubelman S, Fischer J, Zapata F, Huizinga K, Jiang C et al. 2014. Environmental fate of double-stranded RNA in agricultural soils. PLOS ONE 9:e93155
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 31.  Duensing N, Sprink T, Parrott WA, Fedorova M, Lema MA et al. 2018. Novel features and considerations for ERA and regulation of crops produced by genome editing. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 6:79
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32. EASAC (Eur. Acad. Sci. Advis. Counc.). 2017. Genome editing: scientific opportunities, public interests and policy options in the European Union EASAC Policy Rep. 31, Halle, Ger. http://www.easac.eu/fileadmin/PDF_s/reports_statements/Genome_Editing/EASAC_Report_31_on_Genome_Editing.pdf
  33. 33. EFSA (Eur. Food Saf. Auth.). 2014. Explanatory statement for the applicability of the Guidance of the EFSA Scientific Committee on conducting repeated-dose 90-day oral toxicity study in rodents on whole food/feed for GMO risk assessment. EFSA J 12:3871
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 34. EFSA (Eur. Food Saf. Auth.) GMO Panel Work. Group Anim. Feed. Trials. 2008. Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed: the role of animal feeding trials. Food Chem. Toxicol 46:Suppl. 1S2–70
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35. EFSA (Eur. Food Saf. Auth.) Panel Genet. Modif. Org. 2010. Guidance on the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants. EFSA J 8:1879
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36. EFSA (Eur. Food Saf. Auth.) Panel Genet. Modif. Org. 2011. Guidance for risk assessment of food and feed from genetically modified plants. EFSA J 9:2150
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37. EFSA (Eur. Food Saf. Auth.) Panel Genet. Modif. Org. 2012. Scientific opinion addressing the safety assessment of plants developed using zinc finger nuclease 3 and other site-directed nucleases with similar function. EFSA J 10:2943
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38. EFSA (Eur. Food Saf. Auth.) Panel Genet. Modif. Org. 2015. Guidance for renewal applications of genetically modified food and feed authorised under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. EFSA J 13:4129
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39. EFSA (Eur. Food Saf. Auth.) Panel Genet. Modif. Org. 2015. Guidance on the agronomic and phenotypic characterisation of genetically modified plants. EFSA J 13:4128
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40. EFSA (Eur. Food Saf. Auth.) Panel Genet. Modif. Org. 2017. Guidance on allergenicity assessment of genetically modified plants. EFSA J 15:493
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 41. EFSA (Eur. Food Saf. Auth.) Sci. Comm. 2011. Guidance on conducting repeated-dose 90-day oral toxicity study in rodents on whole food/feed. EFSA J 9:2438
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 42. EFSA (Eur. Food Saf. Auth.) Sci. Comm. 2017. Update: Guidance on the use of the benchmark dose approach in risk assessment. EFSA J 15:487
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 43. Environ. Clim. Chang. Can. 2012. Federal contaminated sites action plan (FCSAP): ecological risk assessment guidance. Environment and Climate Change Canada http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2014/ec/En14-19-1-2013-eng.pdf
  44. 44.  Epstein MM, Vermeire T 2016. Scientific opinion on risk assessment of synthetic biology. Trends Biotechnol 34:601–3
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 45.  Eriksson D, de Andrade E, Bohanec B, Chatzopolou S, Defez R et al. 2018. Why the European Union needs a national GMO opt-in mechanism. Nat. Biotechnol. 36:18–19
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 46.  Esvelt KM, Smidler AL, Catteruccia F, Church GM 2014. Concerning RNA-guided gene drives for the alteration of wild populations. eLife 3:e03401
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 47. Eur. Comm. 2017. Summary report of the Joint Meeting Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, Section Genetically Modified Food and Feed and Environmental Risk, and Regulatory Committee under Directive 2001/18/EC. European Commission https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/plant/docs/sc_modif-genet_20170127_sum.pdf
  48. 48. Eur. Comm. 2018. Restrictions of geographical scope of GMO applications/authorisations: EU countries demands and outcomes. European Commission https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/gmo/authorisation/cultivation/geographical_scope_en
  49. 49. Eur. Comm. 2018. Statement by the Group of Chief Scientific Advisors. A scientific perspective on the regulatory status of products derived from gene editing and the implications for the GMO Directive. European Commission https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/2018_11_gcsa_statement_gene_editing_2.pdf
  50. 50. Eur. Plant Sci. Organ. 2016. Synthetic Biology is much more than the application of new breeding techniques Statement, July 12. http://www.epsoweb.org/file/2258
  51. 51.  Floros JD, Wessler SR, Allison DB, Brown CC, Goddard L et al. 2018. Science Breakthroughs to Advance Food and Agricultural Research by 2030 Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  52. 52.  Fojtova M, van Houdt H, Depicker A, Kovarik A 2003. Epigenetic switch from posttranscriptional to transcriptional silencing is correlated with promoter hypermethylation. Plant Physiol 133:1240–50
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 53. FSANZ (Food Stand. Aust. N. Z.). 2013. Response to Heinemann et al on the regulation of GM crops and foods developed using gene silencing. Food Standards Australia and New Zealand http://www.foodstandards.govt.nz/consumer/gmfood/Documents/Heinemann%20Response%20210513.pdf
  54. 54.  Fuchs M, Gonsalves D 2007. Safety of virus-resistant transgenic plants two decades after their introduction: lessons from realistic field risk assessment studies. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 45:173–202
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 55.  Gantz VM, Bier E 2015. The mutagenic chain reaction: a method for converting heterozygous to homozygous mutations. Science 348:6233442–44
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 56.  Garcia-Alonso M 2010. Current challenges in environmental risk assessment: the assessment of unintended effects of GM crops on non-target organisms. IOBC/WPRS Bull 52:57–63
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 57.  Garcia-Alonso M, Jacobs E, Raybould A, Nickson TE, Sowig P et al. 2006. A tiered system for assessing the risk of genetically modified plants to nontarget organisms. Environ. Biosaf. Res. 5:57–65
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 58.  Garcia-Alonso M, Raybould A 2014. Protection goals in environmental risk assessment: a practical approach. Transgenic Res 23:945–56
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 59.  Gostek K 2016. Genetically modified organisms: how the United States' and the European Union's regulations affect the economy.. Michigan State Int. Law Rev. 24:761
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 60.  Gould F, Amasino RM, Brossard D, Buell CR, Dixon RA et al. 2016. Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  61. 61. GRACE (GMO Risk Assess. Commun. Evid.). 2015. Conclusions and recommendations on animal feeding trials and alternative approaches and on the use of systematic reviews and evidence maps for GMO impact assessment Rep., GMO Risk Assess. Commun. Evid., Potsdam, Ger. http://www.grace-fp7.eu/sites/default/files/GRACE_Conclusions%20&Recommendations.pdf
  62. 62.  Gray A 2012. Problem formulation in environmental risk assessment for genetically modified crops: a practitioner's approach. Coll. Biosaf. Rev. 6:10–65
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 63. G-TwYST (Genet. Modif. Plants Two Year Saf. Test.). 2018. Conclusions and recommendations Rep., Genet. Modif. Plants Two Year Saf. Test Bratislava, Slovak: https://www.g-twyst.eu/files/Conclusions-Recommendations/G-TwYSTConclusionsandrecommendations-final.pdf
  64. 64. G-TwYST (Genet. Modif. Plants Two Year Saf. Test.), GRACE (GMO Risk Assess. Commun. Evid.). 2018. Animal feeding studies for GMO risk assessment: lessons from two large EU research projects Policy Brief, Genet. Modif. Plants Two Year Saf. Test., GMO Risk Assess Commun. Evid Bratislava, Slovak: https://www.g-twyst.eu/files/Conclusions-Recommendations/G-TwYSTandGRACEPolicyBrief-Def.pdf
  65. 65.  Herman RA, Price WD 2013. Unintended compositional changes in genetically modified (GM) crops: 20 years of research. J. Agric. Food Chem. 61:11695–701
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 66.  Imperiale M, Boyle P, Carr PA, Densmore D, DiEuliis D et al. 2018. Biodefense in the Age of Synthetic Biology Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  67. 67. ISAAA (Int. Serv. Acquis. Agri-biotech Appl.). 2017. Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops in 2017: biotech crop adoption surges as economic benefits accumulate in 22 years Brief 53, Int. Serv. Acquis. Agri-biotech Appl Ithaca, NY:
  68. 68.  Kasai M, Kanazawa A 2013. Induction of RNA-directed DNA methylation and heritable transcriptional gene silencing as a tool to engineer novel traits in plants. Plant Biotechnol 30:233–41
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 69.  Kok EJ, Kuiper HA 2003. Comparative safety assessment for biotech crops. Trends Biotechnol 21:439–44
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 70.  Kuiper HA, Kok EJ, Davies HV 2013. New EU legislation for risk assessment of GM food: no scientific justification for mandatory animal feeding trials. Plant Biotechnol. J. 11:781–84
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 71.  Ladics GS, Bartholomaeus A, Bregitzer P, Doerrer NG, Gray A et al. 2015. Genetic basis and detection of unintended effects in genetically modified crop plants. Transgenic Res 24:587–603
    [Google Scholar]
  72. 72.  Li Y, Zhang Q, Liu Q, Meissle M, Yang Y et al. 2017. Bt rice in China—focusing the non-target risk assessment. Plant Biotechnol. J. 15:1340–45
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 73.  Lindbo JA 2012. A historical overview of RNAi in plants. Antiviral Resistance in Plants: Methods and Protocols JM Watson, M-B Wang 1–16 Totowa, NJ: Humana
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 74.  Liu W, Stewart CN 2016. Plant synthetic promoters and transcription factors. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 37:36–44
    [Google Scholar]
  75. 75.  Luisi PL 2016. The Emergence of Life: From Chemical Origins to Synthetic Biology Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  76. 76.  Matzke MA, Kanno T, Matzke AJM 2015. RNA-directed DNA methylation: the evolution of a complex epigenetic pathway in flowering plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 66:243–67
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 77.  McHughen A 2006. Plant Genetic Engineering and Regulation in the United States Davis, CA: Univ. Calif. Div. Agric. Nat. Resour https://doi.org/10.3733/ucanr.8179
    [Crossref]
  78. 78.  Moe-Behrens GHG, Davis R, Haynes KA 2013. Preparing synthetic biology for the world. Front. Microbiol. 4:5
    [Google Scholar]
  79. 79. MoEF & CC (Minist. Environ. For. Clim. Chang.), BCIL (Biotech Consort. India Ltd.). 2015. Regulatory Framework for Genetically Engineered (GE) Plants in India New Delhi, India: Minist. Environ. For. Clim. Chang http://www.geacindia.gov.in/resource-documents/13_2-Regulatory_Framework_for_GE_Plants_in_India.pdf
  80. 80.  Naranjo SE 2009. Impacts of Bt crops on non-target invertebrates and insecticide use patterns. CAB Rev. Perspect. Agric. Veter. Sci. Nutr. Nat. Resour. 4:011
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 81.  Neve P 2018. Gene drive systems: Do they have a place in agricultural weed management. ? Pest Manag. Sci. 74:2671–79
    [Google Scholar]
  82. 82. OECD (Organ. Econ. Coop. Dev.). 2018. Test no. 408: repeated dose 90-day oral toxicity study in rodents. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4 Paris: OECD Publ https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264070707-en
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  83. 83.  Privalle LS, Chen J, Clapper G, Hunst P, Spiegelhalter F, Zhong CX 2012. Development of an agricultural biotechnology crop product: testing from discovery to commercialization. J. Agric. Food Chem. 60:10179–87
    [Google Scholar]
  84. 84.  Puchta H, Dujon B, Hohn B 1993. Homologous recombination in plant cells is enhanced by in vivo induction of double strand breaks into DNA by a site-specific endonuclease. Nucleic Acids Res 21:5034–40
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 85.  Puchta H, Dujon B, Hohn B 1996. Two different but related mechanisms are used in plants for the repair of genomic double-strand breaks by homologous recombination. PNAS 93:5055–60
    [Google Scholar]
  86. 86.  Puchta H, Hohn B 1991. A transient assay in plant cells reveals a positive correlation between extrachromosomal recombination rates and length of homologous overlap. Nucleic Acids Res 19:2693–700
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 87.  Raimbault B, Cointet J-P, Joly P-B 2016. Mapping the emergence of synthetic biology. PLOS ONE 11:9e0161522
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 88.  Raybould A 2006. Problem formulation and hypothesis testing for environmental risk assessments of genetically modified crops. Environ. Biosaf. Res. 5:119–25
    [Google Scholar]
  89. 89.  Redenbaugh K, Berner T, Emlay D, Frankos B, Hiatt W et al. 1993. Regulatory issues for commercialization of tomatoes with antisense polygalacturonase gene. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. 29:17–26
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 90.  Reid WV, Mooney HA, Cropper A, Capistrano D, Carpenter SR et al. (Millenn. Ecosyst. Assess). 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis Washington, DC: Island Press http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf
  91. 91.  Roberts AF, Devos Y, Lemgo GNY, Zhou X 2015. Biosafety research for non-target organism risk assessment of RNAi-based GE plants. Front. Plant Sci. 6:958
    [Google Scholar]
  92. 92.  Romeis J, Bartsch D, Bigler F, Candolfi MP, Gielkens MMC et al. 2008. Assessment of risk of insect-resistant transgenic crops to nontarget arthropods. Nat. Biotechnol. 26:203–8
    [Google Scholar]
  93. 93.  Romeis J, Hellmich RL, Candolfi MP, Carstens K, De Schrijver A et al. 2011. Recommendations for the design of laboratory studies on non-target arthropods for risk assessment of genetically engineered plants. Transgenic Res 20:1–22
    [Google Scholar]
  94. 94.  Romeis J, McLean MA, Shelton AM 2013. When bad science makes good headlines: Bt maize and regulatory bans. Nat. Biotechnol. 31:386–87
    [Google Scholar]
  95. 95.  Romeis J, Meissle M, Álvarez-Alfageme F, Bigler F, Bohan DA et al. 2014. Potential use of an arthropod database to support the non-target risk assessment and monitoring of transgenic plants. Transgenic Res 23:995–1013
    [Google Scholar]
  96. 96.  Romeis J, Naranjo SE, Meissle M, Shelton AM 2019. Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control. Biol. Control. 130:136–54
    [Google Scholar]
  97. 97.  Romeis J, Raybould A, Bigler F, Candolfi MP, Hellmich RL et al. 2013. Deriving criteria to select arthropod species for laboratory tests to assess the ecological risks from cultivating arthropod-resistant genetically engineered crops. Chemosphere 90:901–9
    [Google Scholar]
  98. 98.  Sanvido O, Romeis J, Gathmann A, Gielkens M, Raybould A, Bigler F 2012. Evaluating environmental risks of genetically modified crops—ecological harm criteria for regulatory decision-making. Environ. Sci. Policy 15:82–91
    [Google Scholar]
  99. 99.  Sauer NJ, Narváez-Vásquez J, Mozoruk J, Miller RB, Warburg ZJ et al. 2016. Oligonucleotide-mediated genome editing provides precision and function to engineered nucleases and antibiotics in plants. Plant Physiol 170:1917–28
    [Google Scholar]
  100. 100. SCENIHR (Sci. Comm. Emerg. New. Identified Health Risks), SCCS (Sci. Comm. Consum. Saf.), SCHER (Sci. Comm. Health Environ. Risks). 2014. Opinion on synthetic biology I definition. European Commission https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_044.pdf
  101. 101. SCENIHR (Sci. Comm. Emerg. New. Identified Health Risks), SCCS (Sci. Comm. Consum. Saf.), SCHER (Sci. Comm. Health Environ. Risks). 2015. Opinion on synthetic biology II: risk assessment methodologies and safety aspects. European Commission https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_048.pdf
  102. 102.  Schnell J, Steele M, Bean J, Neuspiel M, Girard C et al. 2015. A comparative analysis of insertional effects in genetically engineered plants: considerations for pre-market assessments. Transgenic Res 24:1–17
    [Google Scholar]
  103. 103. Secr. Conv. Biol. Divers. 2000. Cartagena protocol on biosafety to the convention on biological diversity: text and annexes Protoc., Secr. Conv. Biol. Divers Montreal, Can: https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cartagena-protocol-en.pdf
  104. 104.  Séralini G-E, Clair E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N et al. 2012. Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem. Toxicol 50:4221–31 Retracted. 2014. Food Chem.Toxicol. 63:244. Republished. 2014. Environ. Sci. Eur 26:14
    [Google Scholar]
  105. 105.  Sherman JH, Munyikwa T, Chan SY, Petrick JS, Witwer KW, Choudhuri S 2015. RNAi technologies in agricultural biotechnology: the toxicology forum 40th annual summer meeting. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 73:671–80
    [Google Scholar]
  106. 106.  Sijen T, Vijn I, Rebocho A, van Blokland R, Roelofs D et al. 2001. Transcriptional and posttranscriptional gene silencing are mechanistically related. Curr. Biol. 11:436–40
    [Google Scholar]
  107. 107.  Silva JF 2016. GAIN report: Brazil—agricultural biotechnology report. United States Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service https://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Agricultural%20Biotechnology%20Annual_Brasilia_Brazil_11-22-2016.pdf
  108. 108.  Smyth S, McHughen A 2008. Regulating innovative crop technologies in Canada: the case of regulating genetically modified crops. Plant Biotechnol. J. 6:213–25
    [Google Scholar]
  109. 109. Statista. 2018. Area of genetically modified (GM) crops worldwide in 2017, by country (in million hectares). Statista https://www.statista.com/statistics/271897/leading-countries-by-acreage-of-genetically-modified-crops
  110. 110.  Szostak JW, Bartel DP, Luisi PL 2001. Synthesizing life. Nature 409:6818387–90
    [Google Scholar]
  111. 111.  Tanaka H, Stone HA, Nelson DR 2017. Spatial gene drives and pushed genetic waves. PNAS 114:8452–57
    [Google Scholar]
  112. 112.  Trump BD 2017. Synthetic biology regulation and governance: lessons from TAPIC for the United States, European Union, and Singapore. Health Policy 121:1139–46
    [Google Scholar]
  113. 113.  Turner G, Beech C, Roda L 2018. Means and ends of effective global risk assessments for genetic pest management. BMC Proc 12:Suppl. 813
    [Google Scholar]
  114. 114.  Urnov FD, Miller JC, Lee Y-L, Beausejour CM, Rock JM et al. 2005. Highly efficient endogenous human gene correction using designed zinc-finger nucleases. Nature 435:646–51
    [Google Scholar]
  115. 115. US EPA (US Environ. Prot. Agency). 1998. Guidelines for ecological risk assessment Rep. EPA/630/R-95/002F, US Environ. Prot. Agency Washington, DC:
  116. 116. USDA (US Dep. Agric.). 2017. How the federal government regulates biotech plants: roles of U.S. regulatory agencies. United States Department of Agriculture https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/biotechnology/sa_regulations/ct_agency_framework_roles
  117. 117.  Wang H, Xu X 2016. Microhomology-mediated end joining: new players join the team. Cell Biosci 7:6
    [Google Scholar]
  118. 118.  Wang M, Thomas N, Jin H 2017. Cross-kingdom RNA trafficking and environmental RNAi for powerful innovative pre- and post-harvest plant protection. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 38:133–41
    [Google Scholar]
  119. 119.  Whelan AI, Lema MA 2015. Regulatory framework for gene editing and other new breeding techniques (NBTs) in Argentina. GM Crops Food 6:253–65
    [Google Scholar]
  120. 120.  Wolt JD, Keese P, Raybould A, Fitzpatrick JW, Burachik M et al. 2010. Problem formulation in the environmental risk assessment for genetically modified plants. Transgenic Res 19:425–36
    [Google Scholar]
  121. 121.  Yankelevich A 2016. GAIN report: Argentina—annual biotechnology report. United States Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service https://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Agricultural%20Biotechnology%20Annual_Buenos%20Aires_Argentina_12-27-2016.pdf
  122. 122.  Yu AM, McVey M 2010. Synthesis-dependent microhomology-mediated end joining accounts for multiple types of repair junctions. Nucleic Acids Res 38:5706–17
    [Google Scholar]
  123. 123.  Zhang J, Khan SA, Heckel DG, Bock R 2017. Next-generation insect-resistant plants: RNAi-mediated crop protection. Trends Biotechnol 35:871–82
    [Google Scholar]
  124. 124.  Zhong R, Kim J, Kim HS, Kim M, Lum L et al. 2014. Computational detection and suppression of sequence-specific off-target phenotypes from whole genome RNAi screens. Nucleic Acid Res 42:8214–22
    [Google Scholar]
  125. 125. ZKBS (Cent. Comm. Biosaf.). 2018. Synthetic Biology. 2nd Interim Report of the German Central Committee on Biological Safety. https://www.zkbs-online.de/ZKBS/SharedDocs/Downloads/02_Allgemeine_Stellungnahmen_englisch/01_general_subjects/2nd%20report%20Synthetic%20Biology%20(2018).pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=16
  126. 126.  Zotti M, dos Santos EA, Cagliari D, Christiaens O, Taning CNT, Smagghe G 2018. RNA interference technology in crop protection against arthropod pests, pathogens and nematodes. Pest Manag. Sci. 74:1239–50
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-arplant-050718-100025
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-arplant-050718-100025
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error