↓ Skip to main content

Covering Chemical Diversity of Genetically-Modified Tomatoes Using Metabolomics for Objective Substantial Equivalence Assessment

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, February 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
101 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Covering Chemical Diversity of Genetically-Modified Tomatoes Using Metabolomics for Objective Substantial Equivalence Assessment
Published in
PLOS ONE, February 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0016989
Pubmed ID
Authors

Miyako Kusano, Henning Redestig, Tadayoshi Hirai, Akira Oikawa, Fumio Matsuda, Atsushi Fukushima, Masanori Arita, Shin Watanabe, Megumu Yano, Kyoko Hiwasa-Tanase, Hiroshi Ezura, Kazuki Saito

Abstract

As metabolomics can provide a biochemical snapshot of an organism's phenotype it is a promising approach for charting the unintended effects of genetic modification. A critical obstacle for this application is the inherently limited metabolomic coverage of any single analytical platform. We propose using multiple analytical platforms for the direct acquisition of an interpretable data set of estimable chemical diversity. As an example, we report an application of our multi-platform approach that assesses the substantial equivalence of tomatoes over-expressing the taste-modifying protein miraculin. In combination, the chosen platforms detected compounds that represent 86% of the estimated chemical diversity of the metabolites listed in the LycoCyc database. Following a proof-of-safety approach, we show that % had an acceptable range of variation while simultaneously indicating a reproducible transformation-related metabolic signature. We conclude that multi-platform metabolomics is an approach that is both sensitive and robust and that it constitutes a good starting point for characterizing genetically modified organisms.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 3 2%
Spain 2 1%
France 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 132 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 20%
Researcher 25 17%
Student > Bachelor 17 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 7%
Student > Master 10 7%
Other 33 23%
Unknown 20 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 67 47%
Chemistry 14 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 9%
Engineering 6 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 1%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 28 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 March 2015.
All research outputs
#18,403,994
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#154,727
of 194,556 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,489
of 106,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,101
of 1,284 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,556 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 106,015 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,284 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.