Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24781325›Full record

ArticleNature methods2014

Programming biological operating systems: genome design, assembly and activation.

Daniel G Gibson

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Nature methods, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing 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

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The design and engineering of synthetic genomes.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Large-ScaleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2021
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Genome-driven cell engineering review:Essays in biochemistry · 2019
    Review
  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

1 author.

Daniel G Gibson1] J. Craig Venter Institute, La Jolla, California, USA. [2] Synthetic Genomics, Inc., La Jolla, California, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The DNA technologies developed over the past 20 years for reading and writing the genetic code converged when the first synthetic cell was created 4 years ago. An outcome of this work has been an extraordinary set of tools for synthesizing, assembling, engineering and transplanting whole bacterial genomes. Technical progress, options and applications for bacterial genome design, assembly and activation are discussed.

Indexed as

Genome, BacterialSystems BiologyBiotechnologyCell-Free SystemCloning, MolecularDeoxyribonucleasesDNAGene Expression RegulationGenetic EngineeringGenetic VectorsMycoplasmaSaccharomyces cerevisiaeSynthetic BiologyDeoxyribonucleasesDNA

Identifiers

PMID24781325

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.