Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31956705›Full record

ReviewSynthetic and systems biotechnology2020

Biofilm architecture: An emerging synthetic biology target.

Stephen J Kassinger, Monique L van Hoek

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Synthetic and systems biotechnology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing 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

42 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Effect ofPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Vertical growth dynamics of biofilms.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  18. Review
  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

2 authors.

Stephen J KassingerGeorge Mason University, School of Systems Biology, George Mason University, 10920 George Mason Circle, Manassas, VA, 20110, USA.
Monique L van HoekGeorge Mason University, School of Systems Biology, George Mason University, 10920 George Mason Circle, Manassas, VA, 20110, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Synthetic biologists are exploiting biofilms as an effective mechanism for producing various outputs. Metabolic optimization has become commonplace as a method of maximizing system output. In addition to production pathways, the biofilm itself contributes to the efficacy of production. The purpose of this review is to highlight opportunities that might be leveraged to further enhance production in preexisting biofilm production systems. These opportunities may be used with previously established production systems as a method of improving system efficiency further. This may be accomplished through the reduction in the cost of establishing and maintaining biofilms, and maintenance of the enhancement of product yield per unit of time, per unit of area, or per unit of required input.

Indexed as

Biofilm engineeringSynthetic biologyTunable

Identifiers

PMID31956705
PMCPMC6961760

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.