Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22310174›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in biotechnology2012

Engineering microbial systems to explore ecological and evolutionary dynamics.

Yu Tanouchi, Robert P Smith, Lingchong You

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in biotechnology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. The microbiome and human cancer.Science (New York, N.Y.) · 2021
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Exploiting rhizosphere microbial cooperation for developing sustainable agriculture strategies.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2018
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

3 authors.

Yu TanouchiDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
Robert P Smith
Lingchong You

Funding

Project 6P50GM081883 · NIGMS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI BENFEY, PHILIP N · 2007 to 2012
$14.9M
Post-antibiotic effect and design of optimal antibiotic dosing protocolsR01GM098642 · NIGMS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI YOU, LINGCHONG · 2011 to 2025
$3.6M
Coordinating Cell Killing by Communication: Biological Control and Cancer TherapyR01CA118486 · NCI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI YOU, LINGCHONG · 2006 to 2010
$1.1M
NCI NIH HHS 1R01-CA118486NCI NIH HHS R01 CA118486NIGMS NIH HHS 1P50GM081883NIGMS NIH HHS 1R01-GM098642NIGMS NIH HHS P50 GM081883NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM098642
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A major goal of biological research is to provide a mechanistic understanding of diverse biological processes. To this end, synthetic biology offers a powerful approach, whereby biological questions can be addressed in a well-defined framework. By constructing simple gene circuits, such studies have generated new insights into the design principles of gene regulatory networks. Recently, this strategy has been applied to analyze ecological and evolutionary questions, where population-level interactions are critical. Here, we highlight recent development of such systems and discuss how they were used to address problems in ecology and evolutionary biology. As illustrated by these examples, synthetic ecosystems provide a unique platform to study ecological and evolutionary phenomena that are challenging to study in their natural contexts.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionEcosystemGene Regulatory NetworksSynthetic Biology

Identifiers

PMID22310174
PMCPMC3356794

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.