Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29398705›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Microbiology2018

Engineering bacteria for diagnostic and therapeutic applications.

David T Riglar, Pamela A Silver

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Microbiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 214 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
214citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Genome-integrated engineering ofSynthetic and systems biotechnology · 2027
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Reprogrammed SimCells for antimicrobial therapy.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

154 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.

David T RiglarDepartment of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.
Pamela A SilverDepartment of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our ability to generate bacterial strains with unique and increasingly complex functions has rapidly expanded in recent times. The capacity for DNA synthesis is increasing and costing less; new tools are being developed for fast, large-scale genetic manipulation; and more tested genetic parts are available for use, as is the knowledge of how to use them effectively. These advances promise to unlock an exciting array of 'smart' bacteria for clinical use but will also challenge scientists to better optimize preclinical testing regimes for early identification and validation of promising strains and strategies. Here, we review recent advances in the development and testing of engineered bacterial diagnostics and therapeutics. We highlight new technologies that will assist the development of more complex, robust and reliable engineered bacteria for future clinical applications, and we discuss approaches to more efficiently evaluate engineered strains throughout their preclinical development.

Indexed as

Genetic EngineeringAnimalsBacteriaDrug DesignGene Expression Regulation, BacterialGenome, BacterialHumans

Identifiers

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.