Next Article in Journal
NaCl- and Na2SO4-Induced Salinity Differentially Affect Clay Soil Chemical Properties and Yield Components of Two Rice Cultivars (Oryza sativa L.) in Burundi
Next Article in Special Issue
Economic and Environmental Consequences of the ECJ Genome Editing Judgment in Agriculture
Previous Article in Journal
Black Rot Disease Decreases Young Brassica oleracea Plants’ Biomass but Has No Effect in Adult Plants
Previous Article in Special Issue
Detection Methods Fit-for-Purpose in Enforcement Control of Genetically Modified Plants Produced with Novel Genomic Techniques (NGTs)
Review

Implications of the EFSA Scientific Opinion on Site Directed Nucleases 1 and 2 for Risk Assessment of Genome-Edited Plants in the EU

by 1,2
1
Faculty of Biology, University of Latvia, LV-1004 Riga, Latvia
2
Latvian Biomedical Research and Study Centre, LV-1067 Riga, Latvia
Academic Editors: Vladimir Nekrasov, Dennis Eriksson, Ruud A. De Maagd, Angelo Santino and Thorben Sprink
Agronomy 2021, 11(3), 572; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11030572
Received: 2 February 2021 / Revised: 12 March 2021 / Accepted: 15 March 2021 / Published: 18 March 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Precision Genome Editing for Plant Breeding)
Genome editing is a set of techniques for introducing targeted changes in genomes. It may be achieved by enzymes collectively called site-directed nucleases (SDN). Site-specificity of SDNs is provided either by the DNA binding domain of the protein molecule itself or by RNA molecule(s) that direct SDN to a specific site in the genome. In contrast to transgenesis resulting in the insertion of exogenous DNA, genome editing only affects specific endogenous sequences. Therefore, multiple jurisdictions around the world have exempted certain types of genome-edited organisms from national biosafety regulations completely, or on a case-by-case basis. In the EU, however, the ruling of the Court of Justice on the scope of mutagenesis exemption case C-528/16 indicated that the genome-edited organisms are subject to the GMO Directive, but the practical implications for stakeholders wishing to develop and authorize genome-edited products in the EU remain unclear. European Food Safety Authority in response to a request by European Commission has produced a scientific opinion on plants developed by SDN-1, SDN-2, and oligonucleotide-directed mutagenesis (ODM) genome editing techniques. In this review, I will (1) provide a conceptual background on GMO risk assessment in the EU; (2) will introduce the main conclusions of the EFSA opinion, and (3) will outline the potential impact on the risk assessment of genome-edited plants. View Full-Text
Keywords: site-directed nuclease; SDN-1; SDN-2; EFSA opinion; genome-edited organism; genetically modified organism; risk assessment site-directed nuclease; SDN-1; SDN-2; EFSA opinion; genome-edited organism; genetically modified organism; risk assessment
MDPI and ACS Style

Rostoks, N. Implications of the EFSA Scientific Opinion on Site Directed Nucleases 1 and 2 for Risk Assessment of Genome-Edited Plants in the EU. Agronomy 2021, 11, 572. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11030572

AMA Style

Rostoks N. Implications of the EFSA Scientific Opinion on Site Directed Nucleases 1 and 2 for Risk Assessment of Genome-Edited Plants in the EU. Agronomy. 2021; 11(3):572. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11030572

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rostoks, Nils. 2021. "Implications of the EFSA Scientific Opinion on Site Directed Nucleases 1 and 2 for Risk Assessment of Genome-Edited Plants in the EU" Agronomy 11, no. 3: 572. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11030572

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop