Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23815749›Full record

ReviewMicrobial cell factories2013

Adaptive laboratory evolution -- principles and applications for biotechnology.

Martin Dragosits, Diethard Mattanovich

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Microbial cell factories, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 299 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
299citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

299 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Adaptive Laboratory Evolution inMicroorganisms · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Heterologous expression ofEngineering microbiology · 2026
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

239 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

2 authors.

Martin DragositsDepartment of Chemistry, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Muthgasse 11, A-1190 Vienna, Austria. martin.dragosits@boku.ac.at
Diethard Mattanovich

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adaptive laboratory evolution is a frequent method in biological studies to gain insights into the basic mechanisms of molecular evolution and adaptive changes that accumulate in microbial populations during long term selection under specified growth conditions. Although regularly performed for more than 25 years, the advent of transcript and cheap next-generation sequencing technologies has resulted in many recent studies, which successfully applied this technique in order to engineer microbial cells for biotechnological applications. Adaptive laboratory evolution has some major benefits as compared with classical genetic engineering but also some inherent limitations. However, recent studies show how some of the limitations may be overcome in order to successfully incorporate adaptive laboratory evolution in microbial cell factory design. Over the last two decades important insights into nutrient and stress metabolism of relevant model species were acquired, whereas some other aspects such as niche-specific differences of non-conventional cell factories are not completely understood. Altogether the current status and its future perspectives highlight the importance and potential of adaptive laboratory evolution as approach in biotechnological engineering.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularBiotechnologyGene Regulatory Networks

Identifiers

PMID23815749
PMCPMC3716822

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.