Risk assessment of a new bioinformatics evaluation of the insertion sites of genetically modified soybean event 40‐3‐2

Abstract Genetically modified (GM) soybean 40‐3‐2 expresses a 5‐enolpyruvylshikimate‐3‐phosphate synthase protein from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4 (CP4 EPSPS), which confers tolerance to glyphosate. This event was previously assessed by the GMO Panel as a single event and as part of a two‐event stack and was found to be as safe as its conventional counterparts and other appropriate comparators with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment. On September 2021, the European Commission requested EFSA to evaluate a new bioinformatics study which revealed predicted genomic deletions at the insertion sites using the available soybean reference genome. Considering the variability of the soybean genome, with a number of structural variants such as presence/absence variants and copy number variants including genic regions, as well as the fact that a number of genes are present only in particular varieties, the GMO Panel concludes that comparing only to the reference genome does not allow to conclude that the transformation event resulted in gene loss. In support of this, the transcriptomic analysis did not show major differences in gene expression when comparing the soybean 40‐3‐2 with the most closely related conventional variety, indicating that the genetic redundancy may compensate for the potential gene loss. Moreover, the composition, phenotypic and agronomic analyses already assessed by the GMO Panel in previous opinions did not show differences between soybean 40‐3‐2 and its comparators suggesting that the potential gene loss may not have a significant phenotypic effect in soybean 40‐3‐2. For these reasons, the EFSA GMO Panel concludes that the new information provided by the applicant on soybean 40‐3‐2 does not alter EFSA's previous conclusions.

[1]  H. Nguyen,et al.  Sequencing the USDA core soybean collection reveals gene loss during domestication and breeding , 2021, The plant genome.

[2]  M. Zhang,et al.  Pan-Genome of Wild and Cultivated Soybeans , 2020, Cell.

[3]  A. Birch,et al.  Scientific Opinion on an application by Pioneer (EFSA-GMO-NL-2007-47) for the placing on the market of the herbicide-tolerant, high-oleic acid, genetically modified soybean 305423 x 40-3-2 for food and feed uses, import and processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 , 2018 .

[4]  E. Waigmann,et al.  Risk assessment of new sequencing information on genetically modified soybean event 40‐3‐2 , 2017, EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority.

[5]  F. Visioli Scientific Opinion on an application by Pioneer (EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2007‐47) for the placing on the market of the herbicide‐tolerant, high‐oleic acid, genetically modified soybean 305423 × 40‐3‐2 for food and feed uses, import and processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 , 2016 .

[6]  H. Kuiper,et al.  Scientific Opinion on an application (EFSA-GMO-NL-2005-24) for the placing on the market of the herbicide tolerant genetically modified soybean 40-3-2 for cultivation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Monsanto , 2012 .

[7]  T. Sakurai,et al.  Genome sequence of the palaeopolyploid soybean , 2010, Nature.

[8]  E. Iquira,et al.  Effect of transgenes on global gene expression in soybean is within the natural range of variation of conventional cultivars. , 2008, Journal of agricultural and food chemistry.

[9]  Rex T. Nelson,et al.  Gene duplication and paleopolyploidy in soybean and the implications for whole genome sequencing , 2007, BMC Genomics.

[10]  G. Harrigan,et al.  Chemical composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean 40-3-2 grown in Europe remains equivalent with that of conventional soybean (Glycine max L.). , 2007, Journal of agricultural and food chemistry.

[11]  R. Fuchs,et al.  Current Methods for Assessing Safety of Genetically Modified Crops as Exemplified by Data on Roundup Ready 1 Soybeans , 2002, Toxicologic pathology.

[12]  A. Shariff,et al.  Compositional analysis of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans treated with glyphosate. , 1999, Journal of agricultural and food chemistry.

[13]  Holger Puchta,et al.  Capture of genomic and T‐DNA sequences during double‐strand break repair in somatic plant cells , 1998, The EMBO journal.

[14]  G. Hartnell,et al.  The feeding value of soybeans fed to rats, chickens, catfish and dairy cattle is not altered by genetic incorporation of glyphosate tolerance. , 1996, The Journal of nutrition.

[15]  T. T. Bauman,et al.  Yield Evaluation of a Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean Line after Treatment with Glyphosate , 1995 .

[16]  Ganesh M. Kishore,et al.  Development, identification, and characterization of a glyphosate-tolerant soybean line , 1995 .