Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21424911›Full record

ReviewCellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS2011

Using artificial systems to explore the ecology and evolution of symbioses.

Babak Momeni, Chi-Chun Chen, Kristina L Hillesland, Adam Waite, Wenying Shou

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing 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

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. A new era of synthetic biology-microbial community design.Synthetic biology (Oxford, England) · 2024
    Review
  5. Article
  6. A purine salvage bottleneck leads to bacterial adenine cross-feeding.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Niche differentiation among comammox (Frontiers in microbiology · 2022
    Article
  10. Extracellular Metabolism Sets the Table for Microbial Cross-Feeding.Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR · 2021
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

5 authors.

Babak MomeniDivision of Basic Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, 1100 Fairview Avenue North, Seattle, WA 98109, USA.
Chi-Chun Chen
Kristina L Hillesland
Adam Waite
Wenying Shou

Funding

Cellular Cooperation and Cheating: an Experimental and Mathematical AnalysisDP2OD006498 · OD · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI SHOU, WENYING · 2009 to 2009
$2.6M
NIH HHS 1 DP2 OD006498-01NIH HHS DP2 OD006498
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The web of life is weaved from diverse symbiotic interactions between species. Symbioses vary from antagonistic interactions such as competition and predation to beneficial interactions such as mutualism. What are the bases for the origin and persistence of symbiosis? What affects the ecology and evolution of symbioses? How do symbiotic interactions generate ecological patterns? How do symbiotic partners evolve and coevolve? Many of these questions are difficult to address in natural systems. Artificial systems, from abstract to living, have been constructed to capture essential features of natural symbioses and to address these key questions. With reduced complexity and increased controllability, artificial systems can serve as useful models for natural systems. We review how artificial systems have contributed to our understanding of symbioses.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionEcologyModels, TheoreticalSymbiosisEcosystem

Identifiers

PMID21424911
PMCPMC11114700

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.