Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19364720›Full record

ReviewJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2009

Designing and encoding models for synthetic biology.

Lukas Endler, Nicolas Rodriguez, Nick Juty, Vijayalakshmi Chelliah, Camille Laibe, Chen Li, Nicolas Le Novère

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Principles of synthetic biology: a MOOC for an emerging field.Synthetic biology (Oxford, England) · 2019
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Combining computational models, semantic annotations and simulation experiments in a graph database.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2015
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Improving collaboration by standardization efforts in systems biology.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2014
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors.

Lukas EndlerEMBL-European Bioinformatics Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, UK. lukas@ebi.ac.uk
Nicolas Rodriguez
Nick Juty
Vijayalakshmi Chelliah
Camille Laibe
Chen Li
Nicolas Le Novère

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/F010516/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A key component of any synthetic biology effort is the use of quantitative models. These models and their corresponding simulations allow optimization of a system design, as well as guiding their subsequent analysis. Once a domain mostly reserved for experts, dynamical modelling of gene regulatory and reaction networks has been an area of growth over the last decade. There has been a concomitant increase in the number of software tools and standards, thereby facilitating model exchange and reuse. We give here an overview of the model creation and analysis processes as well as some software tools in common use. Using markup language to encode the model and associated annotation, we describe the mining of components, their integration in relational models, formularization and parametrization. Evaluation of simulation results and validation of the model close the systems biology 'loop'.

Indexed as

Systems BiologyAlgorithmsBiologyBiotechnologyComputational BiologyComputer SimulationGene Regulatory NetworksInternetModels, BiologicalModels, TheoreticalProgramming LanguagesSoftware

Identifiers

PMID19364720
PMCPMC2843962

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.