4.5 Review

MS-BASED ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGIES TO CHARACTERIZE GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS

期刊

MASS SPECTROMETRY REVIEWS
卷 30, 期 3, 页码 396-416

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mas.20286

关键词

GMOs; transgenics; metabolomics; proteomics

资金

  1. Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion [AGL2008-05108-C03-01]
  2. FUN-C-FOOD (Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia) [CSD2007-00063]
  3. Comunidad Autonoma de Madrid

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The development of genetically modified crops has had a great impact on the agriculture and food industries. However, the development of any genetically modified organism (GMO) requires the application of analytical procedures to confirm the equivalence of the GMO compared to its isogenic non-transgenic counterpart. Moreover, the use of GMOs in foods and agriculture faces numerous criticisms from consumers and ecological organizations that have led some countries to regulate their production, growth, and commercialization. These regulations have brought about the need of new and more powerful analytical methods to face the complexity of this topic. In this regard, MS-based technologies are increasingly used for GMOs analysis to provide very useful information on GMO composition (e.g., metabolites, proteins). This review focuses on the MS-based analytical methodologies used to characterize genetically modified crops (also called transgenic crops). First, an overview on genetically modified crops development is provided, together with the main difficulties of their analysis. Next, the different MS-based analytical approaches applied to characterize GM crops are critically discussed, and include -omics approaches and target-based approaches. These methodologies allow the study of intended and unintended effects that result from the genetic transformation. This information is considered to be essential to corroborate (or not) the equivalence of the GM crop with its isogenic non-transgenic counterpart. (C) 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., Mass Spec Rev 30:396-416, 2011

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据