The opinion expressed by Eriksson and colleagues’ fails to recognise that there are no standard experimental designs for academic investigations involving omics analyses of genetically modified crops and that the only valid comparator to determine the effect of the process of transgenesis is a near isogenic variety grown at the same time and location, as was the case in our investigation of NK603 maize. Eriksson does not acknowledge that the quality of the rat liver tissues in our chronic Roundup toxicity study has neither been questioned nor branded as unsuitable for further investigation. In addition, Eriksson fails to appreciate that the statistical methods we used to analyse the liver metabolomics dataset are recognised as appropriate as some of a number of approaches that can be taken. Moreover, Eriksson neglects to mention that the proteomics analysis of the liver tissues highlights structural and functional damage from Roundup exposure. Thus our results are sound and the claims by Eriksson and colleagues of experimental flaws are unfounded.Replying to: Eriksson et al. Sci Rep 8 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-30440-7.
CITATION STYLE
Antoniou, M. N., Mesnage, R., Agapito-Tenfen, S., & Séralini, G. E. (2018). Reply to ‘Comments on two recent publications on GM maize and Roundup.’ Scientific Reports, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-30751-9
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.