These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
24. Discrimination of Transgenic Canola ( Sohn SI; Pandian S; Zaukuu JZ; Oh YJ; Park SY; Na CS; Shin EK; Kang HJ; Ryu TH; Cho WS; Cho YS Int J Mol Sci; 2021 Dec; 23(1):. PubMed ID: 35008646 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. 9th International Symposium on the Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms. Session III: Identifying and defining hazards and potential consequences II. Sweet J Environ Biosafety Res; 2006; 5(4):187-8. PubMed ID: 17640504 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. GM crops: a continent divided. Masood E Nature; 2003 Nov; 426(6964):224-6. PubMed ID: 14628018 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. Allergenicity assessment of genetically modified crops--what makes sense? Goodman RE; Vieths S; Sampson HA; Hill D; Ebisawa M; Taylor SL; van Ree R Nat Biotechnol; 2008 Jan; 26(1):73-81. PubMed ID: 18183024 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Transgene introgression from genetically modified crops to their wild relatives. Stewart CN; Halfhill MD; Warwick SI Nat Rev Genet; 2003 Oct; 4(10):806-17. PubMed ID: 14526376 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Fitness and beyond: preparing for the arrival of GM crops with ecologically important novel characters. Wilkinson M; Tepfer M Environ Biosafety Res; 2009; 8(1):1-14. PubMed ID: 19419648 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Genetically Modified Organisms and the Future Global Nutrient Supply: Part of the Solution or a New Problem? Phillips PW World Rev Nutr Diet; 2016; 115():153-63. PubMed ID: 27197734 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Evaluation of the use of untargeted metabolomics in the safety assessment of genetically modified crops. Bedair M; Glenn KC Metabolomics; 2020 Oct; 16(10):111. PubMed ID: 33037482 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Derivation and interpretation of hazard quotients to assess ecological risks from the cultivation of insect-resistant transgenic crops. Raybould A; Caron-Lormier G; Bohan DA J Agric Food Chem; 2011 Jun; 59(11):5877-85. PubMed ID: 21247173 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Mitigation using a tandem construct containing a selectively unfit gene precludes establishment of Brassica napus transgenes in hybrids and backcrosses with weedy Brassica rapa. Al-Ahmad H; Gressel J Plant Biotechnol J; 2006 Jan; 4(1):23-33. PubMed ID: 17177782 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Consideration of familiarity accumulated in the confined field trials for environmental risk assessment of genetically modified soybean (Glycine max) in Japan. Matsushita A; Goto H; Takahashi Y; Tsuda M; Ohsawa R Transgenic Res; 2020 Apr; 29(2):229-242. PubMed ID: 31997144 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Transportability of confined field trial data from cultivation to import countries for environmental risk assessment of genetically modified crops. Nakai S; Hoshikawa K; Shimono A; Ohsawa R Transgenic Res; 2015 Dec; 24(6):929-44. PubMed ID: 26138875 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Landscape-scale distribution and persistence of genetically modified oilseed rape (Brassica napus) in Manitoba, Canada. Knispel AL; McLachlan SM Environ Sci Pollut Res Int; 2010 Jan; 17(1):13-25. PubMed ID: 19588180 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Leave GM analysis to the relevant scientists. Couvet D Nature; 2005 Jul; 436(7049):328. PubMed ID: 16034395 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]