Biomedical subjects

Kikuko Kasama

Publications and source records attributed to Kikuko Kasama.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

[Laboratory-performance study of quantitative PCR methods to analyze an approved genetically modified maize (Mon810 Line)].

A laboratory-performance study was carried out to investigate factors affecting the reliability of the quantitative PCR method to analyze an approved genetically modified (GM) maize (Mon810 line). Test maize powdered samples were prepared as blind samples containing a high (assigned value; 5.45%) or low (assigned value; 0.35%) concentration of the Mon810 line. After confirmation of their homogeneity, they were provided to 27 laboratories participating in the collaborative study. The data were collected from all laboratories and statistically analyzed. Two laboratories, which used a Roche LightCycler (LC), reported significantly high test values. A further examination showed that the LC method is greatly affected by the equipment itself or PCR reagents, resulting in poor repeatability. On the other hand, some laboratories, which used ABI quantitative PCR equipment, reported erroneous test values. In these laboratories, the errors appeared to have been due to inadequate quality and/or yield of DNA. To identify factors affecting the test values, analysis of the measured values for the taxon-specific gene will be useful. Furthermore, the modified silica-gel membrane DNA extraction method made it possible to extract the required amounts of DNA more easily and in a shorter time than before.

DNA, Plant↗

PubMed2005

[Laboratory-performance study of the notified methods to detect genetically modified papaya (55-1)].

To investigate important factors affecting the reliability of the analytical results, proficiency tests were attempted for the histochemical method (GUS method) and the qualitative PCR method (PCR method) to detect genetically modified papaya (55-1) in the Japanease official method. The test samples were distributed to twenty-three laboratories that participated in the study and were examined according to the protocol. All the data collected from participating laboratories were statistically analyzed. In the PCR method, one negative sample was detected as positive using detection primers in one laboratory, though the sample was negative when checked using confirmation primers. Contamination might have occurred in the step of the preparation of the PCR sample solution using detection primers. In the GUS method, all the test samples were identified as expected. Thus, all the laboratories reported correct results overall.

Carica↗

PubMed2005

[Laboratory performance study of the quantitative detection method for genetically modified soybeans (roundup ready soybeans 40-3-2)].

To investigate important factors affecting the analytical results, a laboratory-performance study was attempted for the Japanese official methods to detect genetically modified (GM) soybeans (40-3-2). Test samples containing 0, 1 and 5% GM soya powder in non-GM soya powder was prepared. A set of 3 test samples was sent to the participating laboratories along with the protocol. The data were collected from all laboratories and statistically analyzed. In the real-time PCR detection method, the average values of the GM 1% and 5% samples were both much lower than the spiked value because the laboratories using a silica-membrane DNA extraction method underestimated the GM value. On the other hand, the laboratories using other extraction methods, such as the CTAB method obtained values close to the spiked value. These results suggest that use of the silica-membrane DNA extraction method may result in underestimation of the GM content in the real-time PCR method. In the ELISA method, the average value of 5% spiked samples appears to be slightly higher than the fortified value. But, overall, it was considered that reported values were close to the spiked level.

DNA, Plant↗

PubMed2004

New qualitative detection methods of genetically modified potatoes.

In Japan, 8 lines of genetically modified (GM) potato (2 lines of NewLeaf potato; NL, 3 lines of NewLeaf Plus potato; NLP, and 3 lines of NewLeaf Y potato; NLY) have already been authorized as safe for use in foods and feeds. We have developed polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods for the qualitative detection of the GM potatoes for the screening and the identification of NL, NLP and NLY. The gene encoding uridine diphosphate (UDP)-glucose pyrophosphorylase (UGPase) was used as a taxon specific gene. We designed the primer pair to detect the cryIIIA genes as a screening method for GM potatoes because the gene should be inserted in all 8 lines of the GM potatoes. For identification of NL, NLP and NLY, we further designed three specific primer pairs for the different recombinant DNAs (r-DNA) specifically introduced into NL, NLP, or NLY. In addition, to identify the 3 lines of NLY that have been introduced with the same r-DNA, the three line-specific primer pairs for the border sequence between the r-DNA and genomic DNA of NLY 3 lines were designed. Six lines of GM potato used as the test material were specifically identified using the each primer pair under the same PCR condition. The detection limits of all the GM potatoes should be approximately 0.1%. Furthermore, the specificity and reproducibility of the methods were confirmed in a six-laboratory collaborative study.

Bacillus thuringiensis Toxins↗

PubMed2003

[Laboratory-performance study of the notified methods to detect genetically modified maize (CBH351) and potato (NewLeaf Plus and NewLeaf Y)].

To investigate the key factors affecting the reliability of the analytical results, a laboratory-performance study was attempted for the notified methods to detect genetically modified (GM) maize (CBH351) and GM potato (NewLeaf Plus and NewLeaf Y). The test samples were designed as three pairs of blind duplicates, which included 0%, 0.1% and 1.0% GM maize (CBH351) or GM potato (NewLeaf Plus or NewLeaf Y). Fourteen laboratories participated in the study. The test samples were sent to the participating laboratories along with the protocol. The data were collected from all laboratories and statistically analyzed. For the 0% sample of the CBH351 maize, one laboratory reported a false-positive result. It was considered that contamination could have occurred via the common use of equipment or tools for the test. For the 0.1% samples of the NewLeaf Plus potato or NewLeaf Y potato, on the other hand, three laboratories reported false-negative results. It was presumed that these results were due to changes of the conditions of the electrophoresis and agarose-gel staining. The other laboratories reported appropriate results. It was considered that the method employed in this study was suitable for the assessment of laboratory performance.

DNA, Plant↗