Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28246188›Full record

ReviewCold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology2017

Design Automation in Synthetic Biology.

Evan Appleton, Curtis Madsen, Nicholas Roehner, Douglas Densmore

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology, 2017. 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. Review
  4. Rethinking governance of synthetic cells.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026
    Article
  5. The design and engineering of synthetic genomes.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Machine Learning for Biological Design.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. An electrogenetic toggle switch model.Microbial biotechnology · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Synthetic Morphogenesis: introducing IEEE journal readers to programming living mammalian cells to make structures.Proceedings of the IEEE. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. How To Quantify a Genetic Firewall? A Polarity-Based Metric for Genetic Code Engineering.Chembiochem : a European journal of chemical biology · 2021
    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

4 authors.

Evan AppletonDepartment of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts 02115.
Curtis MadsenBiological Design Center, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts 02215.
Nicholas RoehnerBiological Design Center, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts 02215.
Douglas DensmoreBiological Design Center, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts 02215.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Design automation refers to a category of software tools for designing systems that work together in a workflow for designing, building, testing, and analyzing systems with a target behavior. In synthetic biology, these tools are called bio-design automation (BDA) tools. In this review, we discuss the BDA tools areas-specify, design, build, test, and learn-and introduce the existing software tools designed to solve problems in these areas. We then detail the functionality of some of these tools and show how they can be used together to create the desired behavior of two types of modern synthetic genetic regulatory networks.

Indexed as

AutomationSynthetic BiologyDNAGene Regulatory NetworksSoftwareDNA

Identifiers

PMID28246188
PMCPMC5378053

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.