↓ Skip to main content

Quality of laboratory studies assessing effects of Bt-proteins on non-target organisms: minimal criteria for acceptability

Overview of attention for article published in Transgenic Research, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Quality of laboratory studies assessing effects of Bt-proteins on non-target organisms: minimal criteria for acceptability
Published in
Transgenic Research, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11248-016-9950-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adinda De Schrijver, Yann Devos, Patrick De Clercq, Achim Gathmann, Jörg Romeis

Abstract

The potential risks that genetically modified plants may pose to non-target organisms and the ecosystem services they contribute to are assessed as part of pre-market risk assessments. This paper reviews the early tier studies testing the hypothesis whether exposure to plant-produced Cry34/35Ab1 proteins as a result of cultivation of maize 59122 is harmful to valued non-target organisms, in particular Arthropoda and Annelida. The available studies were assessed for their scientific quality by considering a set of criteria determining their relevance and reliability. As a case-study, this exercise revealed that when not all quality criteria are met, weighing the robustness of the study and its relevance for risk assessment is not obvious. Applying a worst-case expected environmental concentration of bioactive toxins equivalent to that present in the transgenic crop, confirming exposure of the test species to the test substance, and the use of a negative control were identified as minimum criteria to be met to guarantee sufficiently reliable data. This exercise stresses the importance of conducting studies meeting certain quality standards as this minimises the probability of erroneous or inconclusive results and increases confidence in the results and adds certainty to the conclusions drawn.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 3%
Netherlands 1 3%
Unknown 27 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 24%
Professor 3 10%
Other 3 10%
Librarian 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 59%
Unspecified 3 10%
Engineering 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Linguistics 1 3%
Other 4 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 December 2017.
All research outputs
#7,724,430
of 12,361,048 outputs
Outputs from Transgenic Research
#533
of 667 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,791
of 312,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Transgenic Research
#8
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,361,048 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 667 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,741 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.