2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.110918
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of generational effect on proteins and metabolites in non-transgenic and transgenic soybean seeds through the insertion of the cp4-EPSPS gene assessed by omics-based platforms

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
7
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
2
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The same result was achieved by Harrigan et al [59] and Clarke et al [60]. However, it is reported that transgenic soybeans were less affected by generational effects and can present more secondary metabolites, such as prenylated isoflavones [61,62].…”
Section: Metabolomics and Soy An Overviewsupporting
confidence: 76%
“…The same result was achieved by Harrigan et al [59] and Clarke et al [60]. However, it is reported that transgenic soybeans were less affected by generational effects and can present more secondary metabolites, such as prenylated isoflavones [61,62].…”
Section: Metabolomics and Soy An Overviewsupporting
confidence: 76%
“…A lower number of protein spots were found in the callus cell line CF-23 with respect to wild-type CF-WT, indicating a different protein content ( Figure 3 ). Similar findings have been reported in other genetically modified plants ( Barbosa et al., 2012 ; Tan et al., 2017 ; de Campos et al., 2020 ). The CF-23 transgenic line produced two spots (41 and 50) whose MW and IP values resemble chymopapain, the main cysteine proteinase in papaya.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…The average correlation coefficients were 0.91 ± 0.2 for the non-GM sample and 0.92 ± 0.2 for the GM sample with a total number of matched spots of 514 and 669 for the non-GM and GM gels, respectively ( Table 1 ). These results indicate a high degree of sensitivity and reproducibility using the 2D-DIGE/MS approach (Choudhary et al, 2016 ; de Campos et al, 2020 ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 86%