Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19898500›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2009

Synthetic biology: understanding biological design from synthetic circuits.

Shankar Mukherji, Alexander van Oudenaarden

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 92 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
92citing 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

92 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Development ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Interfacing Living and Synthetic Cells as an Emerging Frontier in Synthetic Biology.Angewandte Chemie (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2021
    Review
  17. Interfacing Living and Synthetic Cells as an Emerging Frontier in Synthetic Biology.Angewandte Chemie (International ed. in English) · 2021
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

32 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

2 authors.

Shankar MukherjiHarvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA.
Alexander van Oudenaarden

Funding

Multistability and noise in gene regulatory modulesR01GM068957 · NIGMS · MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI HORVITZ, H ROBERT · 2003 to 2014
$4.6M
Stochastic gene expression in differentiation and developmentDP1OD003936 · OD · MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI VAN OUDENAARDEN, ALEXANDER · 2008 to 2011
$3.4M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM068957NIH HHS DP1 OD003936
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An important aim of synthetic biology is to uncover the design principles of natural biological systems through the rational design of gene and protein circuits. Here, we highlight how the process of engineering biological systems - from synthetic promoters to the control of cell-cell interactions - has contributed to our understanding of how endogenous systems are put together and function. Synthetic biological devices allow us to grasp intuitively the ranges of behaviour generated by simple biological circuits, such as linear cascades and interlocking feedback loops, as well as to exert control over natural processes, such as gene expression and population dynamics.

Indexed as

Gene Expression RegulationGene Regulatory NetworksModels, BiologicalAnimalsCell CommunicationFeedbackGenetic EngineeringHumansModels, GeneticPromoter Regions, GeneticProtein EngineeringSignal Transduction

Identifiers

PMID19898500
PMCPMC3138802

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.