Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31120731›Full record

ArticleACS synthetic biology2019

Fluorescence-Activated Droplet Sorting for Single-Cell Directed Evolution.

Derek Vallejo, Ali Nikoomanzar, Brian M Paegel, John C Chaput

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ACS synthetic biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 120 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. The XNA alphabet.Nucleic acids research · 2025
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Derek Vallejo
Ali Nikoomanzar
Brian M PaegelDepartment of Chemistry , The Scripps Research Institute , Jupiter , Florida 33458 , United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6531-6693
University of California, Irvine · USScripps Research Institute · US

Funding

High-Throughput Droplet-Scale Functional Screening of DNA-Encoded Combinatorial LibrariesR01GM120491 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI PAEGEL, BRIAN M · 2017 to 2020
$1.4M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM120491
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Synthetic biology aims to improve human health and the environment by repurposing biological enzymes for use in practical applications. However, natural enzymes often function with suboptimal activity when engineered into biological pathways or challenged to recognize unnatural substrates. Overcoming this problem requires efficient directed evolution methods for discovering new enzyme variants that function with a desired activity. Here, we describe the construction, validation, and application of a fluorescence-activated droplet sorting (FADS) instrument that was established to evolve enzymes for synthesizing and modifying artificial genetic polymers (XNAs). The microfluidic system enables droplet sorting at ∼2-3 kHz using fluorescent sensors that are responsive to enzymatic activity. The ability to evolve nucleic acid enzymes with customized properties will uniquely drive emerging applications in synthetic biology, biotechnology, and healthcare.

Indexed as

Directed Molecular EvolutionEquipment DesignEscherichia coliHigh-Throughput Screening AssaysMicrofluidic Analytical TechniquesSingle-Cell AnalysisSynthetic Biologydroplet microfluidicsdroplet sortingDrOPSenzyme engineeringhigh throughput screening

Identifiers

PMID31120731
PMCPMC6942126
OpenAlexW2945890079

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.