Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33431228›Full record

ReviewTrends in biotechnology2021

Build a Sustainable Vaccines Industry with Synthetic Biology.

Richard I Kitney, Jennifer Bell, Jim Philp

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in biotechnology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Cyber-biological convergence: a systematic review and future outlook.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Construction ofVaccines · 2023
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Building Biofoundry India: challenges and path forward.Synthetic biology (Oxford, England) · 2021
    Review
  15. 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

3 authors.

Richard I KitneyDepartment of Bioengineering, Imperial College, London, UK.
Jennifer BellInternational Pharmaceutical Quality, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Jim PhilpDirectorate for Science, Technology and Innovation, OECD, Paris, France. Electronic address: james.philp@oecd.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The vaccines industry has not changed appreciably in decades regarding technology, and has struggled to remain viable, with large companies withdrawing from production. Meanwhile, there has been no let-up in outbreaks of viral disease, at a time when the biopharmaceuticals industry is discussing downsizing. The distributed manufacturing model aligns well with this, and the advent of synthetic biology promises much in terms of vaccine design. Biofoundries separate design from manufacturing, a hallmark of modern engineering. Once designed in a biofoundry, digital code can be transferred to a small-scale manufacturing facility close to the point of care, rather than physically transferring cold-chain-dependent vaccine. Thus, biofoundries and distributed manufacturing have the potential to open up a new era of biomanufacturing, one based on digital biology and information systems. This seems a better model for tackling future outbreaks and pandemics.

Indexed as

Drug IndustrySynthetic BiologyVaccinesBiological ProductsPandemicsBiological ProductsVaccinesbiofoundrydistributed manufacturingpoint of caresynthetic biologyvaccines

Identifiers

PMID33431228
PMCPMC7834237

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.