Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20479937›Full record

ArticlePloS one2010

A cell-free microtiter plate screen for improved [FeFe] hydrogenases.

James A Stapleton, James R Swartz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Technology prospecting on enzymes: application, marketing and engineering.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2012
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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.

James A StapletonDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America.
James R Swartz

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background[FeFe] hydrogenase enzymes catalyze the production and dissociation of H(2), a potential renewable fuel. Attempts to exploit these catalysts in engineered systems have been hindered by the biotechnologically inconvenient properties of the natural enzymes, including their extreme oxygen sensitivity. Directed evolution has been used to improve the characteristics of a range of natural catalysts, but has been largely unsuccessful for [FeFe] hydrogenases because of a lack of convenient screening platforms. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsHere we describe an in vitro screening technology for oxygen-tolerant and highly active [FeFe] hydrogenases. Despite the complexity of the protocol, we demonstrate a level of reproducibility that allows moderately improved mutants to be isolated. We have used the platform to identify a mutant of the Chlamydomonas reinhardtii [FeFe] hydrogenase HydA1 with a specific activity approximately 4 times that of the wild-type enzyme. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Our results demonstrate the feasibility of using the screen presented here for large-scale efforts to identify improved biocatalysts for energy applications. The system is based on our ability to activate these complex enzymes in E. coli cell extracts, which allows unhindered access to the protein maturation and assay environment.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PhysiologicalCell-Free SystemChlamydomonas reinhardtiiElectronic Data ProcessingEnzyme AssaysGene LibraryHydrogenaseMutant ProteinsMutationOxygenPoisson DistributionPolymerase Chain ReactionProtein BiosynthesisProtein EngineeringHydrogenaseMutant ProteinsOxygen

Identifiers

PMID20479937
PMCPMC2866662

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.