2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2018.06.014
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

NGS-based amplicon sequencing approach; towards a new era in GMO screening and detection

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
18
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the use of next-generation sequencing technology's capacity to carry out massively parallel multiplexed quantitative amplicon sequencing provides a viable alternative, although it will require significant development effort. This approach has already been applied qualitatively in GMO screening [44]. Fields such as microbiological ecology have already applied this approach quantitatively [45].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the use of next-generation sequencing technology's capacity to carry out massively parallel multiplexed quantitative amplicon sequencing provides a viable alternative, although it will require significant development effort. This approach has already been applied qualitatively in GMO screening [44]. Fields such as microbiological ecology have already applied this approach quantitatively [45].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Features such as absolute quantification, avoidance of using standard curves, and high resilience to inhibitors, makes ddPCR a promising alternative for GM event detection (Rački et al, 2014;Corbisier et al, 2015). SGS technologies have also been proposed to comply with the requirements for GM traceability due to the ability to detect all target sequences in multiple samples without the development and validation of target-specific methods and reference material (Arulandhu et al, 2018). However, the requirement of bioinformatics knowledge for data analysis and more sophisticated devices limits its use in routine GM event detection (Park et al, 2017).…”
Section: Gm Traceabilitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In recent years, significant effort has been performed to replace the time-consuming and expensive qPCR screening procedure (Holst-Jensen et al, 2016;Salisu et al, 2017). As a result, other technologies are been evaluated including ddPCR (Dalmira et al, 2016;Dobnik et al, 2015;Köppel et al, 2015;Demeke et al, 2016;Dobnik et al, 2016;Gerdes et al, 2016;GƂowacka et al, 2016;Iwobi et al, 2016;Grelewska-Nowotko et al, 2018;Niu et al, 2018;Corbisier and Emons, 2019;Giraldo et al, 2019), SGS (Willems et al, 2016;Fraiture et al, 2017;Arulandhu et al, 2018), DNA enrichment approaches (Arulandhu et al, 2016) and combined strategies of DNA walking and SGS (Fraiture et al, 2017).…”
Section: Gm Traceabilitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the protein-based methods depend on the expression level of the targeted proteins and a nondegraded structure and are not applicable if the genetic modification has no impact at the protein level [3]. To overcome these issues, a second approach, DNA-based methods, including polymerase chain reaction (PCR) [4], Southern blot [5], DNA microarrays [6], and next generation sequencing [7] technologies, has been developed. Among these techniques, quantitative PCR (qPCR) is the method of choice in the routine analysis of GMOs.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%