Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31186361›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2019

Massively parallel screening of synthetic microbial communities.

Jared Kehe, Anthony Kulesa, Anthony Ortiz, Cheri M Ackerman, Sri Gowtham Thakku, Daniel Sellers, Seppe Kuehn, Jeff Gore, Jonathan Friedman, Paul C Blainey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 121 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
121citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

121 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Principles for Rigorous Design and Application of Synthetic Microbial Communities.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

61 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

10 authors.

Jared KeheDepartment of Biological Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139.ORCID 0000-0002-1028-5981
Anthony KulesaDepartment of Biological Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139.
Anthony OrtizPhysics of Living Systems, Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139.
Cheri M AckermanThe Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA 02142.
Sri Gowtham ThakkuThe Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA 02142.
Daniel SellersThe Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA 02142.
Seppe KuehnDepartment of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801.ORCID 0000-0002-4130-6845
Jeff GorePhysics of Living Systems, Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139.
Jonathan FriedmanDepartment of Plant Pathology and Microbiology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot, Israel 76100.
Paul C BlaineyDepartment of Biological Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139; pblainey@broadinstitute.org.ORCID 0000-0002-4889-8783

Funding

Graduate Training in Computational and Systems BiologyT32GM087237 · NIGMS · MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI BURGE, CHRISTOPHER B · 2009 to 2023
$4.6M
Discovery of compounds and genes that regulate cancer's epigenome, using combinatorial screening in a nanodrop-microwell platformF32CA236425 · NCI · BROAD INSTITUTE, INC. · PI ACKERMAN, CHERI MARIE · 2019 to 2020
$91k
NCI NIH HHS F32 CA236425NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM087237
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microbial communities have numerous potential applications in biotechnology, agriculture, and medicine. Nevertheless, the limited accuracy with which we can predict interspecies interactions and environmental dependencies hinders efforts to rationally engineer beneficial consortia. Empirical screening is a complementary approach wherein synthetic communities are combinatorially constructed and assayed in high throughput. However, assembling many combinations of microbes is logistically complex and difficult to achieve on a timescale commensurate with microbial growth. Here, we introduce the kChip, a droplets-based platform that performs rapid, massively parallel, bottom-up construction and screening of synthetic microbial communities. We first show that the kChip enables phenotypic characterization of microbes across environmental conditions. Next, in a screen of ∼100,000 multispecies communities comprising up to 19 soil isolates, we identified sets that promote the growth of the model plant symbiont

Indexed as

Microbial ConsortiaSoil MicrobiologyBacteriaBacteriological TechniquesHigh-Throughput Screening AssaysMicrobial InteractionsMicrofluidicscommunity assemblydroplet microfluidicshigh-throughput screeningmicrobial interactionssynthetic ecology

Identifiers

PMID31186361
PMCPMC6600964

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.