Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20702081›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in biotechnology2010

Programming cells: towards an automated 'Genetic Compiler'.

Kevin Clancy, Christopher A Voigt

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in biotechnology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Gene circuit-based sensors.Fundamental research · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Retroactivity in the Context of Modularly Structured Biomolecular Systems.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2015
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. 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.

Kevin ClancyLife Technologies, 5791 Van Allen Way, Carlsbad, CA 90028, USA.
Christopher A Voigt

Funding

System Dynamics of the Salmonella Virulence Regulatory NetworkR01AI067699 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI VOIGT, CHRISTOPHER A · 2007 to 2011
$1.5M
Characterization of Gradient-Responsive Genetic Programs Using Light SensorsR01GM095765 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI VOIGT, CHRISTOPHER A · 2011 to 2014
$1.2M
System Dynamics of the Salmonella Virulence Regulatory NetworkR56AI067699 · NIAID · MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI VOIGT, CHRISTOPHER A · 2012 to 2012
$279k
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI067699NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM095765
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the visions of synthetic biology is to be able to program cells using a language that is similar to that used to program computers or robotics. For large genetic programs, keeping track of the DNA on the level of nucleotides becomes tedious and error prone, requiring a new generation of computer-aided design (CAD) software. To push the size of projects, it is important to abstract the designer from the process of part selection and optimization. The vision is to specify genetic programs in a higher-level language, which a genetic compiler could automatically convert into a DNA sequence. Steps towards this goal include: defining the semantics of the higher-level language, algorithms to select and assemble parts, and biophysical methods to link DNA sequence to function. These will be coupled to graphic design interfaces and simulation packages to aid in the prediction of program dynamics, optimize genes, and scan projects for errors.

Indexed as

AutomationDNASystems BiologyDNA

Identifiers

PMID20702081
PMCPMC2950163

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.