Allergy Risk Assessment for Newly Expressed Proteins (NEPs) in Genetically Modified (GM) Plants

Based on experience and scientific advancements over the past two decades, a revised approach for the assessment of the allergenic potential of newly expressed proteins (NEPs) in genetically modified (GM) plants is warranted. NEPs are most often not native to the crop genome, and thus regulatory reviews of the safety of GM plants include an assessment of the allergenic potential of NEPs. International standards for the assessment of allergenicity first developed in the mid-1990s required a series of characterization studies to be conducted that are, to some extent, still applicable today to the risk assessment of GM plants, with most modern versions represented in the Codex Alimentarius. This standardized guidance on allergenicity assessments, including the required characterization studies, presented two primary challenges. First, there was (and still is) no defined and accepted model (animal or in vitro) for directly testing allergy potential. Second, bioinformatic analyses were prescribed using thresholds for hazard identification that were neither universal for all allergens nor tested prior to the implementation of requirements into guidance documents. Herein, risk assessment principles are applied to structure the assessment of the allergenic potential of NEPs. This allergy risk assessment is built on a foundation of: 1) identifying hazard by assessing similarity to known allergens, and 2) assessing exposure when a hazard is identified. Supplementary studies such as IgE binding may need to be performed in special cases. These recommended revisions to current approaches to the assessment of allergy potential are designed to ensure a realistic, case-by-case approach, and consider updated molecular biology, genomics, and bioinformatic techniques that were unavailable when earlier allergy risk assessment approaches were established. doi: 10.21423/jrs-v09i1mcclai

Presence of small resistant peptides from new in vitro digestion assays detected by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry: An implication of allergenicity prediction of novel proteins?

The susceptibility of newly expressed proteins to digestion by gastrointestinal proteases (e.g., pepsin) has long been regarded as one of the important endpoints in the weight-of-evidence (WOE) approach to assess the allergenic risk of genetically modified (GM) crops. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has suggested that current digestion study protocols used for this assessment should be modified to more accurately reflect the diverse physiological conditions encountered in human populations and that the post-digestion analysis should include analytical methods to detect small peptide digestion products.The susceptibility of two allergens (beta-lactoglobin (β-Lg) and alpha-lactalbumin (α-La)) and two non-allergens (hemoglobin (Hb) and phosphofructokinase (PFK)) to proteolytic degradation was investigated under two pepsin digestion conditions (optimal pepsin digestion condition: pH 1.2, 10 U pepsin/μg test protein; sub-optimal pepsin digestion condition: pH 5.0, 1 U pepsin/10 mg test protein), followed by 34.5 U trypsin/mg test protein and 0.4 U chymotrypsin/mg test protein digestion in the absence or presence of bile salts. All samples were analyzed by sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) in conjunction with Coomassie Blue staining and, in parallel, liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS) detection. The results provide following insights: 1) LC-MS methodology does provide the detection of small peptides; 2) Peptides are detected in both allergens and non-allergens from all digestion conditions; 3) No clear differences among the peptides detected from allergen and non-allergens; 4) The differences observed in SDS-PAGE between the optimal and sub-optimal pepsin digestion conditions are expected and align with kinetics and properties of the specific enzymes; 5) The new methodology with new digestion conditions and LC-MS detection does not provide any differentiating information for prediction whether a protein is an allergen. The classic pepsin resistance assay remains the most useful assessment of the potential exposure of an intact newly expressed protein as part of product safety assessment within a WOE approach

The COMPARE Database:A Public Resource for Allergen Identification, Adapted for Continuous Improvement

Motivation: The availability of databases identifying allergenic proteins via a transparent and consensus-based scientific approach is of prime importance to support the safety review of genetically-modified foods and feeds, and public safety in general. Over recent years, screening for potential new allergens sequences has become more complex due to the exponential increase of genomic sequence information. To address these challenges, an international collaborative scientific group coordinated by the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI), was tasked to develop a contemporary, adaptable, high-throughput process to build the COMprehensive Protein Allergen REsource (COMPARE) database, a publicly accessible allergen sequence data resource along with bioinformatics analytical tools following guidelines of FAO/WHO and CODEX Alimentarius Commission.Results: The COMPARE process is novel in that it involves the identification of candidate sequences via automated keyword-based sorting algorithm and manual curation of the annotated sequence entries retrieved from public protein sequence databases on a yearly basis; its process is meant for continuous improvement, with updates being transparently documented with each version; as a complementary approach, a yearly key-word based search of literature databases is added to identify new allergen sequences that were not (yet) submitted to protein databases; in addition, comments from the independent peer-review panel are posted on the website to increase transparency of decision making; finally, sequence comparison capabilities associated with the COMPARE database was developed to evaluate the potential allergenicity of proteins, based on internationally recognized guidelines, FAO/WHO and CODEX Alimentarius Commissio

Core and Supplementary Studies to Assess the Safety of Genetically Modified (GM) Plants Used for Food and Feed

Genetically modified (GM) plants used for food and feed have an established history of safe use over more than 25 years of their commercialization. Developers and regulatory authorities have accumulated extensive experience in evaluating their safety over time. The studies required for the safety assessment of GM plants used for food and feed should now be re-defined to leverage this experience and increased scientific knowledge. This paper, a companion paper for Waters et al. also published in this issue, presents a systematic approach for the safety assessment of newly expressed proteins (NEPs) in GM plants by evaluating the two components of risk: hazard and exposure. Although the paper focuses on NEPs, the principles presented could also apply to other expression products that do not result in a NEP. A set of core studies is recommended, along with supplementary studies, if needed, to evaluate whether the GM plant poses risk. Core studies include molecular and protein characterization and hazard identification encompassing toxicity and allergenicity. In the absence of hazard, core studies are sufficient to conclude that GM plants are as safe as their conventional counterparts. Depending on the GM trait and intended use, supplementary studies should be performed to characterize hazard and exposure when a hazard is identified. Problem formulation should be used to identify hypothesis-driven supplementary studies. Acute toxicity studies, compositional assessment, and dietary exposure assessment are recommended to be hypothesis-driven supplementary studies. Further discussion on the current food and feed safety assessment landscape for GM plants and the use of problem formulation as a tool for identifying supplementary studies can be found in the companion paper [62]. doi: 10.21423/jrs-v09i1brun