ArticlePloS one2011
Chemical synthesis of bacteriophage G4.
Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Explorative Study on Isolation and Characterization of aAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
- Coupling mutagenesis and parallel deep sequencing to probe essential residues in a genome or gene.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2013Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDue to recent leaps forward in DNA synthesis and sequencing technology, DNA manipulation has been extended to the level of whole-genome synthesis. Bacteriophages occupy a special niche in the micro-organic ecosystem and have potential as a tool for therapeutic agent. The purpose of this study was to carry out chemical synthesis of the bacteriophage G4 and the study of its infectivity. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsFull-sized genomes of bacteriophage G4 molecules were completed from short overlapping synthetic oligonucleotides by direct assembly polymerase chain reaction and ligase chain reaction followed by fusion polymerase chain reaction with flanking primers. Three novel restriction endonuclease sites were introduced to distinguish the synthetic G4 from the wild type. G4 particles were recovered after electroporation into Escherichia coli and were efficient enough to infect another strain. The phage was validated by electron microscope. Specific polymerase chain reaction assay and restriction analyses of the plaques verified the accuracy of the chemical synthetic genomes.
conclusionsOur results showed that the bacteriophage G4 obtained is synthetic rather than a wild type. Our study demonstrated that a phage can be synthesized and manipulated genetically according to the sequences, and can be efficient enough to infect the Escherichia coli, showing the potential use of synthetic biology in medical application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.