ライフサイエンスコーパス: GMO

1 GMO-GET can also be used to describe genetic elements th

2 GMO-GET can be used for GMO-related documentation, inclu

3 For adequate GMO addressing and identification and exchange of GMO-re

4 he screening PSP was developed to detect all GMOs authorized in the EU in one single PCR experiment,

5 ssess DNA degradation, DNA amplification and GMO quantification along breadmaking process of broa.

6 hips between g(H) and [H] in diphytanoyl and GMO bilayers are essentially the same (approximately 0.7

7 lements inserted into conventional GMOs, and GMOs developed by the use of gen(om)e-editing is present

8 ence reporter and the endogene with another (GMO concentration = transgene/endogene ratio).

9 al products of recombinant DNA technology as GMOs lacks biological coherence, but has proved to be a

10 ucts containing more than 0.9% of authorized GMOs per ingredient.

11 tive gA channels are nearly the same in both GMO and DiPhPC bilayers.

12 In both GMO and DPhPC bilayers, fluorination decreased conductan

13 (11)C-GMO also had a long neuronal retention time (>200 h).

14 strongly suggest that PET studies with (11)C-GMO can provide robust and sensitive quantitative measur

15 y was to determine whether analyses of (11)C-GMO kinetics could provide robust and sensitive measures

16 mental modeling and Patlak analysis of (11)C-GMO kinetics each provided quantitative parameters that

17 (11)C-GMO kinetics in isolated rat hearts were also measured f

18 Compartmental modeling of (11)C-GMO kinetics in the monkey heart proved stable under all

19 Compartmental modeling of (11)C-GMO kinetics yielded estimates of the rate constants K1

20 addition, Patlak graphical analyses of (11)C-GMO kinetics yielded Patlak slopes K(p) (mL/min/g), whic

21 at hearts, the neuronal uptake rate of (11)C-GMO was 8 times slower than (11)C-HED and 12 times slowe

22 N-(11)C-guanyl-(-)-meta-octopamine ((11)C-GMO) has a much slower NET transport rate and is trapped

23 ontrast, benign selection markers complement GMOs with reduced fitness.

24 ased complexity of the matrices that contain GMOs.

25 n of Agrobacterium sp. in samples containing GMO or non GMO samples.

26 Moreover, for samples containing GMOs, the throughput and cost-effectiveness is significa

27 genetic elements inserted into conventional GMOs, and GMOs developed by the use of gen(om)e-editing

28 were measured in glycerylmonooleate/decane (GMO) and diphytanoylphosphatidylcholine/decane (DiPhPC)

29 n 10/12 cases was sensitive enough to detect GMO DNA at concentrations of 1%.

30 Newly developed GMO detection methods, also multiplex methods, are mostl

31 Comparing actual and estimated GMO content between two extraction methods, root mean sq

32 Finally, GMO mixtures and a real-life sample were analyzed to ill

33 ndicate that the method could be applied for GMO quantification below the European labeling threshold

34 The most common DNA-based approach for GMO detection and quantification is real-time quantitati

35 n developed to this aim, mainly intended for GMO screening.

36 opment of reliable and sensitive methods for GMO detection.

37 the development of genosensing platforms for GMO quantification, which should be expressed as the num

38 BS1 orthologs and holds strong potential for GMO-free development of new genetic resistance against i

39 omply with international recommendations for GMO quantification methods.

40 GMO-GET can be used for GMO-related documentation, including GMO-related databas

41 During routine monitoring for GMOs in food in the Netherlands, papaya-containing food

42 tect and quantify DNA sequences specific for GMOs.

43 pment of a portable, rapid and user-friendly GMO-detection biosensor, DaimonDNA.

44 ilayers were formed from glycerylmonooleate (GMO) in various solvents.

45 hatidylcholine (DPhPC) or glycerylmonoolein (GMO) bilayers.

46 eads to degradation of DNA, which may impair GMO detection and quantification.

47 In GMO bilayers, however, proton affinities of gA and the d

48 In GMO/decane (thick) bilayers, the largest flicker frequen

49 uantification, it has limited application in GMO quantification for complex matrices.

50 These frequencies were attenuated in GMO/squalene (thin) bilayers by 100-, 30-, and 70-fold i

51 types of bilayers, and for the SS channel in GMO bilayers only.

52 ton conductances in gramicidin A channels in GMO and PEPC cannot be explained by surface charge effec

53 rrier was reduced, and decreased currents in GMO bilayers, where ion exit or entry is rate limiting b

54 trasts with what was previously described in GMO (glycerylmonooleate) bilayers.

55 olution interface is strikingly different in GMO and diphytanoyl bilayers, the reduced slope in g(H)-

56 R dioxolane-linked gA dimer "inactivated" in GMO/decane but not in squalene-containing bilayers.

57 at potential to improve such measurements in GMO testing and monitoring of food authenticity.

58 nels are within the range of 27-29 kJ/mol in GMO bilayers and of 20-22 kJ/mol in DiPhPC bilayers.

59 he monoglyceride bilayer was not reversed in GMO-ether bilayers, solvent-inflated or -deflated bilaye

60 ssing of raw maize play also a major role in GMO quantification.

61 crop and food samples is the primary step in GMO monitoring and regulation, with the increasing numbe

62 nces increased upon fluorination, whereas in GMO they decreased.

63 sed for GMO-related documentation, including GMO-related databases.

64 assessment of novel food proteins, including GMOs.

65 cation capability on grains with high or low GMO content.

66 nd P35S as a transgene element found in many GMO varieties.

67 fraction to investigate the effects of MMPC, GMO, OA, and AA on the bending and stability of lipid bi

68 ated to biotechnology--genetic modification, GMOs, genetic engineering, transgenic, and all the rest-

69 s on the undulation pressure; 10 and 50 mol% GMO increase the fluid spacing of EPC in excess water by

70 membrane fusion, whereas glycerol monoleate (GMO), oleic acid (OA), and arachidonic acid (AA) promote

71 he structure adopted by glycerol monooleate (GMO), an Organic Friction Modifier, when adsorbed at the

72 0-fold) than in neutral glyceryl monooleate (GMO) membranes.

73 lcholine (DPhPC) bilayers than in monoolein (GMO) bilayers (coupled for the four combinations of pept

74 all tested samples, the presence of multiple GMOs was unambiguously proven by the characterization of

75 To cover a broader range, a new GMO screening method was developed, based on two real-ti

76 cterium sp. in samples containing GMO or non GMO samples.

77 e basis for the further development of a non-GMO approach to modulate fish allergenicity and improve

78 2 copies of RRS soybean genomic DNA in a non-GMO background.

79 sustainability (e.g., locally grown and non-GMO/not bioengineered).

80 lasmic male sterile lines for release as non-GMO or transgenic materials.

81 This work demonstrates how non-GMO approaches can transform a common crop plant into a

82 s thaliana) to investigate the limits of non-GMO approaches to maximize oleic acid in the seed oil of

83 and their edited non-transgenic progeny (non-GMO) Allele Sails may prove useful since the spread and

84 In contrast, the addition of GMO has minor effects on the undulation pressure; 10 and

85 Detection of GMO material in crop and food samples is the primary ste

86 ddressing and identification and exchange of GMO-related information it is necessary to use commonly

87 soybean seed with a different percentage of GMO seed two extraction methods were used, CTAB and DNea

88 would increase harmonization and quality of GMO testing in the EU.

89 eal-time PCR revealed that quantification of GMO was feasible in the three different breads and that

90 e of the detection and the quantification of GMO.

91 st-effective, and high-fidelity screening of GMO.

92 The use of GMO-GET will enable consistent and compatible informatio

93 y control ratio, substrate control ratios of GMOd/GMd and GMOSd/GMd were approximately 30-40% lower i

94 osed systems and enable safe applications of GMOs in open systems, which include bioremediation and p

95 atform for direct, quantitative detection of GMOs found in the Turkish feed market.

96 t, and reliable methods for the detection of GMOs is crucial for proper food labeling.

97 to 10(6)-fold, allowing Yes/No detection of GMOs with a limit of detection of approximately 30 copie

98 well as the overall environmental impact of GMOs.

99 As the number of GMOs has increased over time, standard-curve based simpl

100 With the growing number of GMOs introduced to the market, testing laboratories have

101 eeded to prevent unintended proliferation of GMOs in natural ecosystems.

102 edures commonly involved in the screening of GMOs.

103 and characterization of a broad spectrum of GMOs in routine analysis of food/feed matrices.

104 res to ensure authenticity and validation of GMOs.

105 , and De Jaeger to engage with the public on GMOs and genetic engineering broadly.

106 re compared using MON810 varieties, the only GMO event cultivated in Europe.

107 resistance to genetically modified organism (GMO) technologies.

108 the needs for genetically modified organism (GMO) traceability in highly processed foods, the aim of

109 ification of genetically modified organisms (GMO's) using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

110 Presence of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in food and feed products is regulated in many coun

111 aquaculture, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and even pharmaceuticals are raising public concer

112 ification of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and implementation of labeling regulations.

113 ltivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and their use in food and feed is constantly expan

114 the field of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are characterized using real-time polymerase chain

115 Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are commonly used to produce valuable compounds in

116 presence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are evolving constantly to comply with legislation

117 Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are increasingly deployed at large scales and in o

118 Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are increasingly used in research and industrial s

119 constructed genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are introduced into the environment, the method is

120 unauthorised genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being present in the European food and feed chain

121 alization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) demands low-cost, rapid and portable GMO-detection

122 databases on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) exist, all with their specific focus to facilitate

123 presence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in crops, foods and ingredients, necessitated the

124 eased use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is accompanied by increased complexity of the matr

125 o neutralize genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that pose ecological threats outside of controlled

126 labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) with a minimum content of 0.9% would benefit from

127 existing and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), as well as the overall environmental impact of GM

128 umbrella of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), their commercialization is by no means certain at

129 cceptance of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

130 detection of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

131 labeled non-genetically modified organisms (GMOs)/not bioengineered.

132 ide around 'genetically modified organisms' (GMOs) has limited the diffusion and scope of this techno

133 (GMOs) demands low-cost, rapid and portable GMO-detection methods that are technically and economica

134 The present GMO-HPL, which has an unique three-dimensional periodic

135 use each are regulated differently regarding GMO contamination.

136 The resulting GMOs cannot metabolically bypass their biocontainment me

137 cability of the proposed strategy in routine GMO analysis.

138 This work provides a foundation for safer GMOs that are isolated from natural ecosystems by a reli

139 A number of strategies such as pod sealants, GMOs and hybrids have been developed to mitigate the imp

140 tes that, at small interbilayer separations, GMO, OA, or AA converts the bilayer to a structure conta

141 ach for the rapid quantification of specific GMO events in foods.

142 ncapsulated with different emulsifiers (T80, GMO, IN, WPI, and LEC).

143 It was found that GMO forms a surface layer that appears unaltered by the

144 centage of RR, it is possible to monitor the GMO content at the first stage of processing crude oil.

145 effect of shear, where the thickness of the GMO layer was found to be [Formula: see text] A under di

146 he use of gen(om)e-editing is presented: the GMO genetic element thesaurus (GMO-GET).

147 es use different terminology to describe the GMOs.

148 Disaggregating the concept of the 'GMO' is a necessary condition for confronting misconcept

149 resented: the GMO genetic element thesaurus (GMO-GET).

150 These GMOs could also be quantified using the microarray, as t

151 is longer and more restrictive than in thin GMO bilayers.

152 Thus GMO, OA, or AA destabilizes bilayer structure as apposin

153 scribes the development and applicability to GMO testing of a screening strategy involving a PSP and

154 onduction through gA channels in relation to GMO bilayers.

155 eworks that distinguish between transgenics (GMO) and their edited non-transgenic progeny (non-GMO) A

156 initially been developed on the basis of two GMO databases, i.e. the Biosafety Clearing-House and the

157 eveloped a strategy to identify unauthorised GMOs containing a pCAMBIA family vector, frequently pres

158 To identify unauthorised GMOs in food and feed matrices, an integrated approach h

159 irst, the potential presence of unauthorised GMOs is assessed by the qPCR SYBR(R)Green technology tar

160 e used to securely authenticate and validate GMOs without disclosing the actual signature.

161 fluorescence signals increased linearly with GMO concentration.