Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10704473›Full record

ReviewMicrobiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR2000

Metabolic engineering of Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

S Ostergaard, L Olsson, J Nielsen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 85 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
85citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

85 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Enhanced glutathione production by a non-GMOFood science and biotechnology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Machine learning enables identification of an alternative yeast galactose utilization pathway.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Evaluation of the electrochemical response ofCurrent research in food science · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

25 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

S OstergaardCenter for Process Biotechnology, Department of Biotechnology, Technical University of Denmark, DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark.
L Olsson
J Nielsen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Comprehensive knowledge regarding Saccharomyces cerevisiae has accumulated over time, and today S. cerevisiae serves as a widley used biotechnological production organism as well as a eukaryotic model system. The high transformation efficiency, in addition to the availability of the complete yeast genome sequence, has facilitated genetic manipulation of this microorganism, and new approaches are constantly being taken to metabolicially engineer this organism in order to suit specific needs. In this paper, strategies and concepts for metabolic engineering are discussed and several examples based upon selected studies involving S. cerevisiae are reviewed. The many different studies of metabolic engineering using this organism illustrate all the categories of this multidisciplinary field: extension of substrate range, improvements of producitivity and yield, elimination of byproduct formation, improvement of process performance, improvements of cellular properties, and extension of product range including heterologous protein production.

Indexed as

BiotechnologyFermentationGenetic EngineeringGlucoseLactoseMaltoseMelibioseRecombinant ProteinsSaccharomyces cerevisiaeStarchSucroseXyloseGlucoseLactoseMaltoseMelibioseRecombinant ProteinsStarchSucroseXylose

Identifiers

PMID10704473
PMCPMC98985

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.