ReviewMicroorganisms2020
The Expanding Computational Toolbox for Engineering Microbial Phenotypes at the Genome Scale.
Review in Microorganisms, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Calculation of Protein Folding Thermodynamics Using Molecular Dynamics Simulations.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2023Article
- SynBioTools: a one-stop facility for searching and selecting synthetic biology tools.BMC bioinformatics · 2023Article
- Predicting stress response and improved protein overproduction in Bacillus subtilis.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2022Article
- Construction of Multiscale Genome-Scale Metabolic Models: Frameworks and Challenges.Biomolecules · 2022Review
- Review
- Intelligent host engineering for metabolic flux optimisation in biotechnology.The Biochemical journal · 2021Review
- Modelling hCDKL5 Heterologous Expression in Bacteria.Metabolites · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Microbial strains are being engineered for an increasingly diverse array of applications, from chemical production to human health. While traditional engineering disciplines are driven by predictive design tools, these tools have been difficult to build for biological design due to the complexity of biological systems and many unknowns of their quantitative behavior. However, due to many recent advances, the gap between design in biology and other engineering fields is closing. In this work, we discuss promising areas of development of computational tools for engineering microbial strains. We define five frontiers of active research: (1) Constraint-based modeling and metabolic network reconstruction, (2) Kinetics and thermodynamic modeling, (3) Protein structure analysis, (4) Genome sequence analysis, and (5) Regulatory network analysis. Experimental and machine learning drivers have enabled these methods to improve by leaps and bounds in both scope and accuracy. Modern strain design projects will require these tools to be comprehensively applied to the entire cell and efficiently integrated within a single workflow. We expect that these frontiers, enabled by the ongoing revolution of big data science, will drive forward more advanced and powerful strain engineering strategies.
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.