On date unavailable, commented:

None

On 2014 Mar 22, Andrew R Kniss commented:

There are now two published criticisms of this work in New Phytologist, the journal that originally published the article.

• Letter from Gressel et al: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/nph.12615/
• + author response to Gressel et al. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/nph.12684/
• letter from Grunewald & Bury: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/nph.12683/
• + author response to Grunewald & Bury: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/nph.12748/

On 2013 Oct 23, Andrew R Kniss commented:

This is a very interesting paper, and it recieved wide media coverage after publication. There are some rather large oversights/deficiencies that should be noted. I have posted a rather long critique of this paper at my blog. There are several problems with the paper, all of which are described in detail at the link. In a nutshell:

• The breeding methods used did not ensure enough genetic uniformity between GE and non-GE hybrids to attribute differences to the transgene as they claim.
• The authors provided very little information about the the original transformation event, and how the transformed line differed from its parent line (even after presenting data suggesting the lines had different phenotypes).
• The authors do not adequately discuss other possibilities that may explain their results, particularly with respect to the promoter they used and the impact of closely linked genes.
• Closely related traits (tiller production, panicle production, seed production) are presented as independent evidence of an increase in fitness.
• None of the experiments presented in this study were repeated.

On 2013 Oct 23, Andrew R Kniss commented:

This is a very interesting paper, and it recieved wide media coverage after publication. There are some rather large oversights/deficiencies that should be noted. I have posted a rather long critique of this paper at my blog. There are several problems with the paper, all of which are described in detail at the link. In a nutshell:

• The breeding methods used did not ensure enough genetic uniformity between GE and non-GE hybrids to attribute differences to the transgene as they claim.
• The authors provided very little information about the the original transformation event, and how the transformed line differed from its parent line (even after presenting data suggesting the lines had different phenotypes).
• The authors do not adequately discuss other possibilities that may explain their results, particularly with respect to the promoter they used and the impact of closely linked genes.
• Closely related traits (tiller production, panicle production, seed production) are presented as independent evidence of an increase in fitness.
• None of the experiments presented in this study were repeated.