Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30123321›Full record

ReviewJournal of biological engineering2018

Auxotrophy to Xeno-DNA: an exploration of combinatorial mechanisms for a high-fidelity biosafety system for synthetic biology applications.

Christopher M Whitford, Saskia Dymek, Denise Kerkhoff, Camilla März, Olga Schmidt, Maximilian Edich, Julian Droste, Boas Pucker, Christian Rückert, Jörn Kalinowski

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of biological engineering, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Mapping variation in dual use risk assessments of synthetic biology projects.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Microbial Catalysis for COCold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology · 2024
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

10 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Christopher M Whitford1Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5023-0830
Saskia Dymek1Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany.
Denise Kerkhoff1Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany.
Camilla März1Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany.
Olga Schmidt1Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany.
Maximilian Edich1Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany.
Julian Droste1Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany.
Boas Pucker1Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3321-7471
Christian Rückert1Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9722-4435
Jörn Kalinowski1Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany.
Bielefeld University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBiosafety is a key aspect in the international Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) competition, which offers student teams an amazing opportunity to pursue their own research projects in the field of Synthetic Biology. iGEM projects often involve the creation of genetically engineered bacterial strains. To minimize the risks associated with bacterial release, a variety of biosafety systems were constructed, either to prevent survival of bacteria outside the lab or to hinder horizontal or vertical gene transfer. MAIN BODY: Physical containment methods such as bioreactors or microencapsulation are considered the first safety level. Additionally, various systems involving auxotrophies for both natural and synthetic compounds have been utilized by iGEM teams in recent years. Combinatorial systems comprising multiple auxotrophies have been shown to reduced escape frequencies below the detection limit. Furthermore, a number of natural toxin-antitoxin systems can be deployed to kill cells under certain conditions. Additionally, parts of naturally occurring toxin-antitoxin systems can be used for the construction of 'kill switches' controlled by synthetic regulatory modules, allowing control of cell survival. Kill switches prevent cell survival but do not completely degrade nucleic acids. To avoid horizontal gene transfer, multiple mechanisms to cleave nucleic acids can be employed, resulting in 'self-destruction' of cells. Changes in light or temperature conditions are powerful regulators of gene expression and could serve as triggers for kill switches or self-destruction systems. Xenobiology-based containment uses applications of Xeno-DNA, recoded codons and non-canonical amino acids to nullify the genetic information of constructed cells for wild type organisms. A 'minimal genome' approach brings the opportunity to reduce the genome of a cell to only genes necessary for survival under lab conditions. Such cells are unlikely to survive in the natural environment and are thus considered safe hosts. If suitable for the desired application, a shift to cell-free systems based on Xeno-DNA may represent the ultimate biosafety system.

conclusionHere we describe different containment approaches in synthetic biology, ranging from auxotrophies to minimal genomes, which can be combined to significantly improve reliability. Since the iGEM competition greatly increases the number of people involved in synthetic biology, we will focus especially on biosafety systems developed and applied in the context of the iGEM competition.

Indexed as

AuxotrophyBioBrickEscherichia coliGenetic engineeringiGEMKill switchPhysical containmentSemantic containment

Identifiers

PMID30123321
PMCPMC6090650
OpenAlexW2887653966

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.