Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26055155›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2015

Methods for the directed evolution of proteins.

Michael S Packer, David R Liu

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 410 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
410citing 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

410 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Anti-CRISPR-mediated continuous directed evolution of CRISPR-Cas9 in human cells.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Synthetic Biology Approaches to Enzymology in Food and Agriculture Systems.Journal of agricultural and food chemistry · 2026
    Review
  20. Article

350 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.

Michael S PackerDepartment of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Harvard University, 12 Oxford Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA.
David R LiuDepartment of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Harvard University, 12 Oxford Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA.

Funding

New Approaches for the Delivery of Proteins and Nucleic Acids Into CellsR01GM095501 · NIGMS · HARVARD UNIVERSITY · PI LIU, DAVID R · 2011 to 2014
$1.3M
Howard Hughes Medical InstituteNIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM095501
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Directed evolution has proved to be an effective strategy for improving or altering the activity of biomolecules for industrial, research and therapeutic applications. The evolution of proteins in the laboratory requires methods for generating genetic diversity and for identifying protein variants with desired properties. This Review describes some of the tools used to diversify genes, as well as informative examples of screening and selection methods that identify or isolate evolved proteins. We highlight recent cases in which directed evolution generated enzymatic activities and substrate specificities not known to exist in nature.

Indexed as

Directed Molecular EvolutionAnimalsGenetic TechniquesHumansProtein EngineeringProteinsSubstrate SpecificityProteins

Identifiers

PMID26055155

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.