Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20150964›Full record

ReviewJournal of biomedicine & biotechnology2010

Synthetic biology: tools to design, build, and optimize cellular processes.

Eric Young, Hal Alper

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of biomedicine & biotechnology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Microbial production of 5-Applied and environmental microbiology · 2024
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Engineered transcriptional systems for cyanobacterial biotechnology.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2014
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. DNA movies and panspermia.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2011
    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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Eric YoungDepartment of Chemical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA.
Hal Alper
The University of Texas at Austin · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The general central dogma frames the emergent properties of life, which make biology both necessary and difficult to engineer. In a process engineering paradigm, each biological process stream and process unit is heavily influenced by regulatory interactions and interactions with the surrounding environment. Synthetic biology is developing the tools and methods that will increase control over these interactions, eventually resulting in an integrative synthetic biology that will allow ground-up cellular optimization. In this review, we attempt to contextualize the areas of synthetic biology into three tiers: (1) the process units and associated streams of the central dogma, (2) the intrinsic regulatory mechanisms, and (3) the extrinsic physical and chemical environment. Efforts at each of these three tiers attempt to control cellular systems and take advantage of emerging tools and approaches. Ultimately, it will be possible to integrate these approaches and realize the vision of integrative synthetic biology when cells are completely rewired for biotechnological goals. This review will highlight progress towards this goal as well as areas requiring further research.

Indexed as

Cell Physiological PhenomenaBioengineeringCytological TechniquesSignal TransductionSystems Biology

Identifiers

PMID20150964
PMCPMC2817555
OpenAlexW1972306691

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.