Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24736795›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Microbiology2014

Biotechnological domestication of pseudomonads using synthetic biology.

Pablo I Nikel, Esteban Martínez-García, Víctor de Lorenzo

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Microbiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 158 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
158citing 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

158 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Multi-strain analysis ofmSystems · 2026
    Article
  6. Functional organization and regulatory logic of theApplied and environmental microbiology · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Multi-strain Analysis ofbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  10. Synthetic CmBio · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Engineered Membrane Vesicle Production viaACS synthetic biology · 2025
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Leveraging EngineeredACS synthetic biology · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Genome streamlining ofmSystems · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Draft genome sequence ofMicrobiology resource announcements · 2024
    Article

98 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

3 authors.

Pablo I NikelSystems and Synthetic Biology Program, Centro Nacional de Biotecnología, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CNB-CSIC), Madrid 28049, Spain.
Esteban Martínez-GarcíaSystems and Synthetic Biology Program, Centro Nacional de Biotecnología, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CNB-CSIC), Madrid 28049, Spain.
Víctor de LorenzoSystems and Synthetic Biology Program, Centro Nacional de Biotecnología, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CNB-CSIC), Madrid 28049, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Much of contemporary synthetic biology research relies on the use of bacterial chassis for plugging-in and plugging-out genetic circuits and new-to-nature functionalities. However, the microorganisms that are the easiest to manipulate in the laboratory are often suboptimal for downstream industrial applications, which can involve physicochemical stress and harsh operating conditions. In this Review, we advocate the use of environmental Pseudomonas strains as model organisms that are pre-endowed with the metabolic, physiological and stress-endurance traits that are demanded by current and future synthetic biology and biotechnological needs.

Indexed as

BiotechnologyEnvironmentGenetic EngineeringGenetic VectorsMetabolic Networks and PathwaysOrganisms, Genetically ModifiedPseudomonasSynthetic Biology

Identifiers

PMID24736795

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.