, 2004, Hammond et al., 2006a, Hammond et al., 2006b, Healy et al., 2008,

Qi et al., 2012 and Zhu et al., 2004) simply stated that a pathologist or veterinary pathologist performed the analysis, RGFP966 supplier but no mention was given as to what these analyses entailed, for example what pathological parameters were used or what was measured and why. The exception appears to be a study by Teshima et al. (2000) who stated that the morphology of the small intestine mucosa was assessed, in particular the composition of goblet cells and intraepithelial lymphocytes. According to the authors, the analysis was based on a chapter in an immunotoxicology textbook (Kawabata, 1996). However, that chapter did not mention the purpose or even how the investigation of the OTX015 order small intestine should appear. In particular, it did not include the definition of what constitutes abnormal or diseased, such as, what changes in goblet cell population would indicate a pathology. A paper that appears to be well-structured and thorough was the Tutel’ian et al. (2008) study published in Russian. The methods section clearly stated that the morphometric analysis of the internal organs was conducted according to textbook guidelines (Avtandilov, 1982 and Avtandilov, 1990) and results were compared according to guidelines set out by Stefanov (1985). The two Russian textbooks (Avtandilov, 1982 and Avtandilov, 1990) are manuals on how to conduct

quantitative research to obtain a meaningful assessment of morphological PTK6 changes. In other words, the Tutel’ian et al. (2008) study appears to be thorough and well set out, especially since detailed results are provided for the analyses. However, the publication lacks basic information. It does not specify the number of rats used in the study and it does not list which organs were collected for the histopathological analyses. Results

seem to imply that the ileum was the only section of the GI tract to be analysed. A more thorough study would have investigated other sections of the GI tract to more accurately ensure that the GM crop did not have any adverse effects. Another Russian study (Tutel’ian et al., 2010) also appears to be properly conducted. Its safety assessment is based on the Tutel’ian et al. (2008) study, which implies that the same rigorous morphometric analysis was also utilised. However, even this publication lacks key information. For example, the paper indicated that the morphometric analysis was conducted on the small intestine and colon, but results were only reported for the small intestine. In addition, the publication does not specify which section of the small intestine these results pertain to. This lack of detail in both Russian papers makes it difficult to determine the veracity of the results. It also makes it difficult to reproduce and further the study or to compare these studies to others.