Online discussions of the Network of Laboratories for the Detection and Identification of Living Modified Organisms 2025

Dear Colleagues, 

Welcome to the online discussions of the Network of Laboratories for the Detection and Identification of Living Modified Organisms. 

My name is David Dobnik and I am Assistant Professor and Research Councillor at the National Institute of Biology (NIB), Slovenia, with nearly two decades of hands‑on experience in developing, validating and transferring nucleic‑acid–based methods for the detection and identification of genetically modified organisms (GMOs/LMOs) across food, feed, seed and environmental matrices. I lead the GMO working unit and the GMO detection laboratory within NIB’s Department of Biotechnology and Systems Biology, which serves as National Reference Laboratory for GMO detection. I oversee end‑to‑end assay development, validation and implementation for qPCR and digital PCR (dPCR) workflows.

My professional focus is on scientifically robust, accreditation‑ready testing aligned with European regulatory requirements, directly paralleling the Cartagena Protocol’s emphasis on biosafety, traceability and inter‑laboratory comparability. I routinely translate advances in molecular analytics into standard operating procedures, reference‑material strategies and staff training - ensuring that new techniques are integrated without compromising quality systems.

Under this first topic, I would like to invite you to discuss your experiences, challenges, and/or needs related to the implementation of new techniques for the detection and identification of LMOs. During the 2023 discussions of this Network, participants highlighted several developments. Digital PCR was noted for its advantages, and some laboratories reported successful implementation of multiplex methods, although the technique was not yet widely regarded as high throughput. Next-generation sequencing was recognized as a powerful complementary tool, particularly for the detection of unauthorized or unknown LMOs, despite persisting challenges related to quantification and data availability. Isothermal amplification methods (sometimes combined with CRISPR systems) were used for rapid screening, while various refinements to established PCR-based approaches continued to enhance performance.

Given this context, it would be valuable to gain a clearer understanding of developments since 2023. In this regard, please keep in mind the following:

For the past 2 years:

a) Are there any new analytical techniques (or protocols) that have been developed or implemented since 2023 that could be applied to detection and identification of LMOs? If so, please describe them?

b) Has the transition to the use of new methodologies been achieved in your laboratory?

c) Have these new methodologies been successfully implemented and has high throughput been achieved? If so, are the costs affordable? Are they part of the routine analysis? Has the number of targets increased?

d) If new methodologies have not yet been implemented in your laboratory, what factors have prevented their adoption, and what challenges do you anticipate in implementing them?


I look forward to your insights. 

David Dobnik

Dear Colleagues, 

Welcome to the online discussions of the Network of Laboratories for the Detection and Identification of Living Modified Organisms. 

My name is David Dobnik and I am Assistant Professor and Research Councillor at the National Institute of Biology (NIB), Slovenia, with nearly two decades of hands‑on experience in developing, validating and transferring nucleic‑acid–based methods for the detection and identification of genetically modified organisms (GMOs/LMOs) across food, feed, seed and environmental matrices. I lead the GMO working unit and the GMO detection laboratory within NIB’s Department of Biotechnology and Systems Biology, which serves as National Reference Laboratory for GMO detection. I oversee end‑to‑end assay development, validation and implementation for qPCR and digital PCR (dPCR) workflows.

My professional focus is on scientifically robust, accreditation‑ready testing aligned with European regulatory requirements, directly paralleling the Cartagena Protocol’s emphasis on biosafety, traceability and inter‑laboratory comparability. I routinely translate advances in molecular analytics into standard operating procedures, reference‑material strategies and staff training - ensuring that new techniques are integrated without compromising quality systems.

Under this second topic, I would like to invite you to discuss your experience in detecting and identifying newly developed LMOs, unauthorized LMOs, and stacked events. In the 2023 discussions of this Network, participants noted that many laboratories had limited experience with the detection of newly developed or unauthorized LMOs. Some participants reported using expanded screening strategies, event-specific methods, and next-generation sequencing to improve detection, particularly when sequence information was incomplete or unavailable. Challenges remained, however, in detecting organisms produced through new genomic techniques, for which current methods were not fully adequate and sequencing-based approaches remained costly.

Considering these issues, it would be valuable to understand the progress made since 2023. In this regard, please keep in mind the following: 

a) Could you describe your experience with the detection and identification of newly developed LMOs?

b) Similarly, what experience can you share regarding the detection and identification of unauthorized LMOs?

c) To overcome the challenges faced, what steps did you take, or analytical tools did you implement?

d) What challenges do you foresee in the near future for these types of LMOs?

I look forward to your insights. 

David Dobnik

Dear Colleagues, 

Welcome to the online discussions of the Network of Laboratories for the Detection and Identification of Living Modified Organisms. 

My name is Melina Pérez Urquiza. I served for more than fifteen years at the National Metrology Center of Mexico (CENAM), where I had the honor of contributing to the establishment of the Mexican Laboratory Network for GMO Measurement and of leading the development and certification of calibrant and control reference materials for the determination of LMOs and GMOs. Currently I work as an independent consultant.

It is my privilege to moderate Topic 3: Experiences and challenges in the development, use, and maintenance of reference materials, based on the online discussions of the Network of Laboratories for the Detection and Identification of Living Modified Organisms. 

From the discussions of this Network in 2023, participants highlighted the limited access to certified reference materials as a major constraint for reliable LMO detection, quantification and method validation. New approaches such as nanoplate-type digital PCR were noted for their potential to reduce dependence on conventional reference materials, while some countries reported developing their own certified materials to fill gaps. Overall, securing consistent, affordable and accessible reference materials was identified as an essential capacity-building need and a continuing challenge for laboratories, especially when dealing with newly developed or unauthorized LMOs. In this context, I kindly ask you to consider the following points:

a) Are the reference materials available on the market sufficient for your laboratory's needs?

b) What are the limitations in obtaining certified reference materials in your laboratory? Are the costs affordable? 

c) Do you have experience in developing your own reference materials? Has it been possible to certify them?

d) What alternatives can be used when certified reference materials (CRMs) are unavailable (e.g., in-house developed reference materials)?

I look forward to your insights. 

Melina Perez Urquiza

Dear Colleagues, 

Welcome to the online discussions of the Network of Laboratories for the Detection and Identification of Living Modified Organisms. 

My name is Melina Pérez Urquiza. I served for more than fifteen years at the National Metrology Center of Mexico (CENAM), where I had the honor of contributing to the establishment of the Mexican Laboratory Network for GMO Measurement and of leading the development and certification of calibrant and control reference materials for the determination of LMOs and GMOs. Currently I work as an independent consultant.

It is my privilege to moderate Topic 4: The role of regional networks in supporting knowledge sharing and interlaboratory comparisons.

Under this fourth topic, I would like to gain a clearer understanding of the role of regional networks in supporting knowledge sharing and the effectiveness of interlaboratory comparisons in enhancing the reliability of laboratory results. During the 2023 discussions of this Network, participants emphasized that national and regional laboratory networks provide valuable platforms for sharing expertise, harmonizing methods, exchanging reagents and samples, and strengthening collective capacity for LMO detection. These collaborations were considered important for addressing technical gaps, reducing costs, supporting accreditation efforts, and facilitating the adoption of improved methodologies.

In this context, I kindly ask you to consider the following points:

a) Can you share your experience participating in national or regional networks over the past two years?

b) Have these networks been active in your region recently?

c) Have you found laboratory networks useful for conducting or facilitating proficiency testing?

d) Are there any interlaboratory comparison programs currently available within your regional networks?

e) Do you have any suggestions for improving the overall functioning of laboratory networks for the detection and identification of LMOs?


I look forward to your insights. 

Melina Perez Urquiza