China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Consumer Views on Health Issues Arising from Food Products
Published in Megh R. Goyal, Preeti Birwal, Santosh K. Mishra, Phytochemicals and Medicinal Plants in Food Design, 2022
Harita R. Desai, Murlidhar Meghwal
The use of genetically modified plants has several advantages, such as food quantity and quality, nutrition, health, and agricultural practice [94]. However, the use of genetically modified food (GMF) has been associated with the safety concerns of general public. Genetic modification in plants is achieved by deliberate insertion of specific genetic material into plants using recombinant DNA technique [96].
Understanding the Metabolomics of Medicinal Plants under Environmental Pollution
Published in Azamal Husen, Environmental Pollution and Medicinal Plants, 2022
Prachi Sao, Rahat Parveen, Aryan Khattri, Shubhra Sharma, Neha Tiwari, Sachidanand Singh
Genetic engineering can also be called genetic alteration and can be described as changes made by humans in the genetic structure or arrangement of some species. These methods are widely used by scientists to enhance the essential characteristics of spices such as disease tolerance, adverse environmental contamination, and increased yield (Rausher, 2001). Using genetically modified plants for phytoremediation improves the efficacy of the technology. Extensive research on the metabolomics of phytoremediation plants, at the molecular and pathways level, researchers were able to selectively modify genes of the plant to enhance phytoremediation properties.
Epilogue
Published in Brendan Curran, A Terrible Beauty is Born, 2020
The release of genetically engineered organisms into the environment is, at the time of writing, a topic of intense public discussion. What ‘the people’ actually think is by no means clear but self-proclaimed ‘environmental protection’ pressure groups, supported by sections of the press and broadcasting, exert constant political pressure against the production and use of GM corps. Emotions are heightened, ‘activists’ sabotage experimental growth plots and balanced debate becomes very difficult. The public, battered by partisan opinion from both sides of the argument, don’t know what to make of it; are GM crops the saviours of humanity (as their commercial protagonists would have us believe) or tantamount to the work of the devil (judging by the way many of the environmentalist talk). Can we ever know the exact consequences of introducing genetically modified plants into the field? How much do we need to test? How relevant to other parts of the world are 10 years of US experience? How circumspect do we need to be before pressing on?
Dietary inclusion of royal jelly modulates gene expression and activity of oxidative stress enzymes in zebrafish
Published in Journal of Enzyme Inhibition and Medicinal Chemistry, 2021
Ercüment Aksakal, Deniz Ekinci, Claudiu T. Supuran
Zebrafish is a very suitable model organism for toxicological and nutritional studies, and oxidative stress investigations performed with this organism have gained great interest in the recent years. For instance, in a study to determine the effects of genetically modified plant sources, effects of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM maize diets on feed utilisation, growth and stress were investigated in zebrafish. When both maize sources were compared, it was observed that the growth rate of fish fed GM was higher, but SOD and HSP-70 mRNA expression levels were lower. They reported that effects of GM products differ depending on the gender, and statistically different levels of SOD mRNA were observed in male and female fish36.
The role of plant expression platforms in biopharmaceutical development: possibilities for the future
Published in Expert Review of Vaccines, 2019
Genetically modified plants and plant viruses that produce vaccines, monoclonal antibodies and therapeutic proteins have been available for over twenty years. Initially, the focus was placed on several different vaccines that were responsible for high rates of infant mortality in developing countries. These included diarrheal diseases such as cholera, enterotoxigenic E. coli and rotavirus [6,7]. Hepatitis B virus, which infects one-third of the human race, was also a strong disease candidate for plant-made vaccine development. Initially, transgenic plants such as tobacco, tomato, lettuce, and maize were employed for vaccine development so that the vaccine protein could be provided in edible plant tissue or stored in the form of seed [8–10]. These plants were created by nuclear transformation and are further described in the following review by Chan and Daniell, (2015) [11]. Later, transplastomic plants expressing vaccine proteins within their chloroplasts were developed via (homologous recombination-mediated insertion); while these organelles have the advantage of generating high levels of protein, they lack the ability to fold many pharmaceutical proteins in a proper manner to render them biologically active [12]. Examples of pharmaceuticals expressed in plant chloroplasts include vaccines to combat HIV [13], polio [14] and cysticercosis [15]. Nuclear transformed transgenic plants also had difficulty in faithfully producing pharmaceutical proteins that were identical to their mammalian counterparts due to differences between animal and plant glycosylation profiles. As a result, a series of ‘humanized’ transgenic plant lines have been constructed which express the glycosidases or glycosyltransferases found solely in animal cells (their plant-specific glycosidase open reading frames have been knocked out and are no longer expressed). These ‘humanized’ plants can thus produce pharmaceutical proteins that are both correctly folded and biologically active. Further details on glycosylation of plant-made vaccines can be found in Kim et al., (2014) and Margolin et al. (2018) [16,17].
Hurdles of environmental risk assessment procedures for advanced therapy medicinal products: comparison between the European Union and the United States
Published in Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 2019
C. Iglesias-Lopez, M. Obach, A. Vallano, A. Agustí, J. Montané
The European legislative framework contemplates two possible ways in which a GMO can come into contact with the environment: a “contained use” and a “deliberate release”. Contained use refers to any activity in which microorganisms are genetically modified or in which such genetically modified micro-organisms (GMMs) are cultured, stored, transported, destroyed, disposed of or used in any other way, and for which specific containment measures are used to limit their contact with, and to provide a high level of safety for, the general population and the environment, for instance the use of GMOs in confined laboratories (Directive 2009/41/EC 2009). By contrast, deliberate release refers to any intentional introduction into the environment of a GMO for which no specific containment measures are used to limit their contact with and to provide a high level of safety for the general population and the environment, i.e. in the context of research purposes when a product that consists/contains a GMO is tested in clinical trials, or when this product is placed to the market. Although the term GMM is used within the legal framework of contained use, and in the case of deliberate release, the term is GMO, the definitions of these two terms are virtually the same (Directive 2001/18/EC 2001). In both cases, before any GMO can be used in any of these contexts, the ERA should have been submitted and an authorization must have been granted. The requirements and the procedures for performing an ERA in each case are laid down in Directive 2009/41/EC (2009) and in Commission Decision 2000/608/EC10 for contained use of GMOs, and in Directive 2001/18/EC (2001) and in European Commission Decision 2002/623/EC11 for deliberate release. On one hand, the focus of Directive 2009/41/EC (2009) is on the assessment of the biosafety level classification of the GMO and the implementation of physical, chemical and biological barriers in order to limit the contact of the GMO with the environment. The risk classification has consequences for the procedure and review period of the application, and usually requires clinical site-specific notifications. On the other hand, Directive 2001/18/EC (2001) seeks to conduct an ERA that considers the effects on human health and the environment prompted by an intentional introduction of a GMO into the environment aiming to provide the safety measures necessary to minimize the potential risks. This Directive was primarily addressed for genetically modified plants and agricultural products, raising difficulties on preparing the ERA since the application forms are generally not designed for medicinal products (Buechner et al. 2018).