ArticleMicrobial biotechnology2020
Are synthetic biology standards applicable in everyday research practice?
Article in Microbial biotechnology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biological parts in yeast synthetic biology: from regulatory elements to predictive design platforms.FEMS yeast research · 2026Review
- SEVA 4.0: an update of the Standard European Vector Architecture database for advanced analysis and programming of bacterial phenotypes.Nucleic acids research · 2023Article
- pBLAM1-x: standardized transposon tools for high-throughput screening.Synthetic biology (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Advancing reproducibility can ease the 'hard truths' of synthetic biology.Synthetic biology (Oxford, England) · 2023Review
- Implementing re-configurable biological computation with distributed multicellular consortia.Nucleic acids research · 2022Article
- A User's Guide to Golden Gate Cloning Methods and Standards.ACS synthetic biology · 2022Review
- Applicability of Control Materials To Support Gene Promoter Characterization and Expression in Engineered Cells Using Digital PCR.Analytical chemistry · 2022Article
- Are synthetic biology standards applicable in everyday research practice?Microbial biotechnology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The issue of standardization in synthetic biology is a recurring one. As a discipline that incorporates engineering principles into biological designs, synthetic biology needs effective ways to communicate results and allow different researchers (both academic and industrial) to build upon previous results and improve on existing designs. An aspect that is left out of the discussions, especially when they happen at the level of academic and industrial consortia or policymaking, is whether or not standards are applicable or even useful in everyday research practice. In this caucus article, we examine this particular issue with the hope of including it in the standardization discussions agenda and provide insights into a topic that synthetic biology researchers experience daily.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.