Article

Comparison and transfer testing of multiplex ligation detection methods for GM plants.

RIKILT-Institute of Food Safety (WUR), Akkermaalsbos 2, 6708 WB Wageningen, the Netherlands.
BMC Biotechnology (Impact Factor: 2.59). 01/2012; 12:4. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6750-12-4
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT With the increasing number of GMOs on the global market the maintenance of European GMO regulations is becoming more complex. For the analysis of a single food or feed sample it is necessary to assess the sample for the presence of many GMO-targets simultaneously at a sensitive level. Several methods have been published regarding DNA-based multidetection. Multiplex ligation detection methods have been described that use the same basic approach: i) hybridisation and ligation of specific probes, ii) amplification of the ligated probes and iii) detection and identification of the amplified products. Despite they all have this same basis, the published ligation methods differ radically. The present study investigated with real-time PCR whether these different ligation methods have any influence on the performance of the probes. Sensitivity and the specificity of the padlock probes (PLPs) with the ligation protocol with the best performance were also tested and the selected method was initially validated in a laboratory exchange study.
Of the ligation protocols tested in this study, the best results were obtained with the PPLMD I and PPLMD II protocols and no consistent differences between these two protocols were observed. Both protocols are based on padlock probe ligation combined with microarray detection. Twenty PLPs were tested for specificity and the best probes were subjected to further evaluation. Up to 13 targets were detected specifically and simultaneously. During the interlaboratory exchange study similar results were achieved by the two participating institutes (NIB, Slovenia, and RIKILT, the Netherlands).
From the comparison of ligation protocols it can be concluded that two protocols perform equally well on the basis of the selected set of PLPs. Using the most ideal parameters the multiplicity of one of the methods was tested and 13 targets were successfully and specifically detected. In the interlaboratory exchange study it was shown that the selected method meets the 0.1% sensitivity criterion. The present study thus shows that specific and sensitive multidetection of GMO targets is now feasible.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
145 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Risk assessment is an important step in the process of deregulating a genetically modified (GM) crop and its derived products for food and feed. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) evaluates safety by testing for the average equivalence between the GM crop and a group of commercial non-GM reference varieties representing a population of crops with a history of safe use. This paper defines the equivalence tests described by EFSA in terms of parameters in the mixed model. A basic strategy for the equivalence tests is proposed. Generalized inference is employed to overcome two challenges in testing equivalences: the unconventional parameter of interest and the limited number of reference varieties. Balanced or partially balanced incomplete designs are recommended in equivalence testing. Simulation indicates this new method maintains the desired type I error rate and holds good power under practical designs. An illustrative data example is used to demonstrate the execution of the proposed method in SAS. Finally, issues associated with the equivalence tests and suggested topics for future research are discussed.
    Crop Science 09/2014; 54(5):2183. DOI:10.2135/cropsci2014.01.0011 · 1.48 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Combinatory SYBR®Green real-time PCR Screening (CoSYPS) is an efficient, sensitive approach for detecting complex targets such as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food and feed products. GMO analysis for legal purposes has become increasingly complex and costly due to the diversity in recombinant targets present in the different GMOs. For this reason, screening for the presence of GMOs is in general the first step in the detection of GM material in a product. CoSYPS allows detecting the large majority of globally commercial GMOs using SYBR®Green real-time PCR methods for six GM targets (P35S, Tnos, CryIAb, CP4-EPSPS, PAT and BAR) combined with species-specific PCR methods (e.g., maize, soy, rapeseed). Here, the results of an inter-laboratory trial on seven samples with different GMO mixtures at different levels are presented. In total, 13 laboratories participated in the trial and the currently most frequently used PCR analysis platforms are represented. The inter-laboratory study clearly demonstrates that PCR methods used in CoSYPS form a very robust GMO screening system. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values are for all PCR methods higher than 95 % for all samples. Together, these results show that the SYBR®Green real-time PCR methods used in CoSYPS are effectively applicable to different PCR platforms and amendable to configuration into a sensitive high-throughput GMO screening and decision support tool.
    Food Analytical Methods 03/2014; 7(8):1719. DOI:10.1007/s12161-014-9837-3 · 1.80 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A portable bioluminescence analyser for detecting the DNA sequence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) was developed by using a photodiode (PD) array. Pyrosequencing on eight genes (zSSIIb, Bt11 and Bt176 gene of genetically modified maize; Lectin, 35S-CTP4, CP4EPSPS, CaMV35S promoter and NOS terminator of the genetically modified Roundup ready soya) was successfully detected with this instrument. The corresponding limit of detection (LOD) was 0.01% with 35 PCR cycles. The maize and soya available from three different provenances in China were detected. The results indicate that pyrosequencing using the small size of the detector is a simple, inexpensive, and reliable way in a farm/field test of GMO analysis.
    Food Chemistry 07/2014; 154:78–83. DOI:10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.01.001 · 3.26 Impact Factor

Full-text

Download
45 Downloads
Available from
May 29, 2014