First successful reduction of clinical allergenicity of food by genetic modification: Mal d 1-silenced apples cause fewer allergy symptoms than the wild-type cultivar.

BACKGROUND: Genetic modification of allergenic foods such as apple has the potential to reduce their clinical allergenicity, but this has never been studied by oral challenges in allergic individuals. METHODS: We performed oral food challenges in 21 apple-allergic individuals with Elstar apples which had undergone gene silencing of the major allergen of apple, Mal d 1, by RNA interference. Downregulation of Mal d 1 gene expression in the apples was verified by qRT-PCR. Clinical responses to the genetically modified apples were compared to those seen with the wild-type Elstar using a visual analogue scale (VAS). RESULTS: Gene silencing produced two genetically modified apple lines expressing Mal d 1.02 and other Mal d 1 gene mRNA levels which were extensively downregulated, that is only 0.1-16.4% (e-DR1) and 0.2-9.9% (e-DR2) of those of the wild-type Elstar, respectively. Challenges with these downregulated apple lines produced significantly less intense maximal symptoms to the first dose (Vmax1) than with Elstar (Vmax1 Elstar 3.0 mm vs 0.0 mm for e-DR1, P = 0.017 and 0.0 mm for e-DR2, P = 0.043), as well as significantly less intense mean symptoms per dose (meanV/d) than with Elstar (meanV/d Elstar 2.2 mm vs 0.2 mm for e-DR1, P = 0.017 and 0.0 mm for e-DR2, P = 0.043). Only one subject (5%) remained symptom-free when challenged with the Elstar apple, whereas 43% did so with e-DR1 and 63% with e-DR2. CONCLUSION: These data show that mRNA silencing of Mal d 1 results in a marked reduction of Mal d 1 gene expression in the fruit and reduction of symptoms when these apples are ingested by allergic subjects. Approximately half of the subjects developed no symptoms whatsoever, and virtually all subjects wished to consume the apple again in the future.

Information on plant foods in eBASIS: what is in a correct botanical scientific name?

This paper presents the plant information included in the eBASIS (BioActive Substances in Foods Information System) database on composition and biological activity of selected bioactive compounds from European plant/mushroom foods with putative beneficial and/or toxic effects. The European Food Information Resource (EuroFIR)-NETTOX Plant List (2007) presents scientific and vernacular names in 15 European languages for around 325 major European plant/mushroom foods and also for different parts of these foods. This list and its predecessor, the NETTOX List of Food Plants, have been used by national food authorities and within the European Union for consideration of plants and mushrooms that have been used to a significant degree up to 1997 and are therefore not covered by the novel food regulation (European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 1997). The species and the plant part studied are insufficiently characterised in many scientific papers. This paper informs about the naming of plants and mushrooms as an aid for scientists who are not botanists or mycologists themselves. Knowledge on scientific names used, including synonyms, may also be important for finding all relevant papers when searching the literature. In many cases, vernacular/trivial names in, for example, English do not uniquely identify the species. Finally, recommendations are given to assist researchers and reviewers of papers dealing with botanical/mycological information.

IUPAC collaborative trial study of a method to detect genetically modified soy beans and maize in dried powder.

This paper presents results of a collaborative trial study (IUPAC project No. 650/93/97) involving 29 laboratories in 13 countries applying a method for detecting genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food. The method is based on using the polymerase chain reaction to determine the 35S promotor and the NOS terminator for detection of GMOs. reference materials were produced that were derived from genetically modified soy beans and maize. Correct identification of samples containing 2% GMOs is achievable for both soy beans and maize. For samples containing 0.5% genetically modified soy beans, analysis of the 35S promotor resulted also in a 100% correct classification. However, 3 false-negative results (out of 105 samples analyzed) were reported for analysis of the NOS terminator, which is due to the lower sensitivity of this method. Because of the bigger genomic DNA of maize, the probability of encountering false-negative results for samples containing 0.5% GMOs is greater for maize than for soy beans. For blank samples (0% GMO), only 2 false-positive results for soy beans and one for maize were reported. These results appeared as very weak signals and were most probably due to contamination of laboratory equipment.