The status under EU Law of Organisms developed through novel genomic techniques

In a ruling on 25 July 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union concluded that organisms obtained by means of techniques/methods of mutagenesis constitute GMOs in the sense of Directive 2001/18, and that organisms obtained by means of techniques/methods of directed mutagenesis are not excluded from the scope of the Directive. Following the ruling, there has been much debate about the possible wider implications of the ruling. In October 2019, the Council of the European Union requested the European Commission to submit, in light of the CJEU ruling, a study regarding the status of novel genomic techniques under Union Law. For the purpose of the study, the Commission initiated stakeholder consultations early in 2020. Those consultations focused on the technical status of novel genomic techniques. This article aims to contribute to the discussion on the legal status of organisms developed through novel genomic techniques, by offering some historical background to the negotiations on the European Union (EU) GMO Directives as well as a technical context to some of the terms in the Directive, and by analysing the ruling. The article advances that (i) the conclusion that organisms obtained by means of techniques/methods of mutagenesis constitute GMOs under the Directive means that the resulting organisms must comply with the GMO definition, ie the genetic material of the resulting organisms has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination; (ii) the conclusion that organisms obtained by means of techniques/methods of directed mutagenesis were not intended to be excluded from the scope of the Directive is not inconsistent with the negotiation history of the Directive; (iii) whether an organism falls under the description of “obtained by means of techniques/methods of directed mutagenesis” depends on whether the genetic material of the resulting organisms has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. Finally, the article offers an analysis of the EU GMO definition, concluding that for an organism to be a GMO in the sense of the Directive, the technique used, as well as the genetic alterations of the resulting organism, must be considered

PfAlbas constitute a new eukaryotic DNA/RNA-binding protein family in malaria parasites

In Plasmodium falciparum, perinuclear subtelomeric chromatin conveys monoallelic expression of virulence genes. However, proteins that directly bind to chromosome ends are poorly described. Here we identify a novel DNA/RNA-binding protein family that bears homology to the archaeal protein Alba (Acetylation lowers binding affinity). We isolated three of the four PfAlba paralogs as part of a molecular complex that is associated with the P. falciparum-specific TARE6 (Telomere-Associated Repetitive Elements 6) subtelomeric region and showed in electromobility shift assays (EMSAs) that the PfAlbas bind to TARE6 repeats. In early blood stages, the PfAlba proteins were enriched at the nuclear periphery and partially co-localized with PfSir2, a TARE6-associated histone deacetylase linked to the process of antigenic variation. The nuclear location changed at the onset of parasite proliferation (trophozoite-schizont), where the PfAlba proteins were also detectable in the cytoplasm in a punctate pattern. Using single-stranded RNA (ssRNA) probes in EMSAs, we found that PfAlbas bind to ssRNA, albeit with different binding preferences. We demonstrate for the first time in eukaryotes that Alba-like proteins bind to both DNA and RNA and that their intracellular location is developmentally regulated. Discovery of the PfAlbas may provide a link between the previously described subtelomeric non-coding RNA and the regulation of antigenic variation

Rules Governing Selective Protein Carbonylation

BACKGROUND:Carbonyl derivatives are mainly formed by direct metal-catalysed oxidation (MCO) attacks on the amino-acid side chains of proline, arginine, lysine and threonine residues. For reasons unknown, only some proteins are prone to carbonylation. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:we used mass spectrometry analysis to identify carbonylated sites in: BSA that had undergone in vitro MCO, and 23 carbonylated proteins in Escherichia coli. The presence of a carbonylated site rendered the neighbouring carbonylatable site more prone to carbonylation. Most carbonylated sites were present within hot spots of carbonylation. These observations led us to suggest rules for identifying sites more prone to carbonylation. We used these rules to design an in silico model (available at http://www.lcb.cnrs-mrs.fr/CSPD/), allowing an effective and accurate prediction of sites and of proteins more prone to carbonylation in the E. coli proteome. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE:We observed that proteins evolve to either selectively maintain or lose predicted hot spots of carbonylation depending on their biological function. As our predictive model also allows efficient detection of carbonylated proteins in Bacillus subtilis, we believe that our model may be extended to direct MCO attacks in all organisms

The Status under EU Law of Organisms Developed through Novel Genomic Techniques

In a ruling on 25 July 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union concluded that organisms obtained by means of techniques/methods of mutagenesis constitute GMOs in the sense of Directive 2001/18, and that organisms obtained by means of techniques/methods of directed mutagenesis are not excluded from the scope of the Directive. Following the ruling, there has been much debate about the possible wider implications of the ruling. In October 2019, the Council of the European Union requested the European Commission to submit, in light of the CJEU ruling, a study regarding the status of novel genomic techniques under Union Law. For the purpose of the study, the Commission initiated stakeholder consultations early in 2020. Those consultations focused on the technical status of novel genomic techniques. This article aims to contribute to the discussion on the legal status of organisms developed through novel genomic techniques, by offering some historical background to the negotiations on the European Union (EU) GMO Directives as well as a technical context to some of the terms in the Directive, and by analysing the ruling. The article advances that (i) the conclusion that organisms obtained by means of techniques/methods of mutagenesis constitute GMOs under the Directive means that the resulting organisms must comply with the GMO definition, ie the genetic material of the resulting organisms has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination; (ii) the conclusion that organisms obtained by means of techniques/methods of directed mutagenesis were not intended to be excluded from the scope of the Directive is not inconsistent with the negotiation history of the Directive; (iii) whether an organism falls under the description of "obtained by means of techniques/methods of directed mutagenesis" depends on whether the genetic material of the resulting organisms has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. Finally, the article offers an analysis of the EU GMO definition, concluding that for an organism to be a GMO in the sense of the Directive, the technique used, as well as the genetic alterations of the resulting organism, must be considered