| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 38 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 35% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 18% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Librarian | 3 | 8% |
| Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Unknown | 3 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 21 | 53% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 5% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Psychology | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 5 | 13% |
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
#15,364,458
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from Transgenic Research
#716
of 890 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,713
of 299,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Transgenic Research
#16
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 890 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. 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 299,392 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.