Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20591848›Full record

ReviewJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2010

A comparative analysis of synthetic genetic oscillators.

Oliver Purcell, Nigel J Savery, Claire S Grierson, Mario di Bernardo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing 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

74 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. A universal description of stochastic oscillators.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

14 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

4 authors.

Oliver PurcellBristol Centre for Complexity Sciences, Department of Engineering Mathematics, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. enoep@bristol.ac.uk
Nigel J Savery
Claire S Grierson
Mario di Bernardo

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Synthetic biology is a rapidly expanding discipline at the interface between engineering and biology. Much research in this area has focused on gene regulatory networks that function as biological switches and oscillators. Here we review the state of the art in the design and construction of oscillators, comparing the features of each of the main networks published to date, the models used for in silico design and validation and, where available, relevant experimental data. Trends are apparent in the ways that network topology constrains oscillator characteristics and dynamics. Also, noise and time delay within the network can both have constructive and destructive roles in generating oscillations, and stochastic coherence is commonplace. This review can be used to inform future work to design and implement new types of synthetic oscillators or to incorporate existing oscillators into new designs.

Indexed as

Gene Regulatory NetworksGenesGenetic EngineeringBiological ClocksComputational BiologyFeedback, PhysiologicalGene Expression RegulationModels, GeneticSynthetic Biology

Identifiers

PMID20591848
PMCPMC2988261

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.