ArticleGenetics2010
Flipping DNA to generate and regulate microbial consortia.
Article in Genetics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Melanoma and microbiota: Current understanding and future directions.Cancer cell · 2024Review
- Artificial cell-cell communication as an emerging tool in synthetic biology applications.Journal of biological engineering · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Communities of interdependent microbes, found in diverse natural contexts, have recently attracted the attention of bioengineers. Such consortia have potential applications in biosynthesis, with metabolic tasks distributed over several phenotypes, and in live-cell microbicide therapies where phenotypic diversity might aid in immune evasion. Here we investigate one route to generate synthetic microbial consortia and to regulate their phenotypic diversity, through programmed genetic interconversions. In our theoretical model, genotypes involve ordered combinations of DNA elements representing promoters, protein-coding genes, and transcription terminators; genotypic interconversions are driven by a recombinase enzyme that inverts DNA segments; and selectable phenotypes correspond to distinct patterns of gene expression. We analyze the microbial population as it evolves along a graph whose nodes are distinct genotypes and whose edges are interconversions. We show that the steady-state proportion of each genotype depends on its own growth advantage, as well as on its connectivity to other genotypes. Multiple phenotypes with identical or distinct growth rates can be indefinitely maintained in the population, while their proportion can be regulated by varying the rate of DNA flipping. Recombinase-based synthetic constructs have already been implemented; the graph-theoretic framework developed here will be useful in adapting them to generate microbial consortia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.