Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33494801›Full record

ReviewBiotechnology for biofuels2021

Approaches to genetic tool development for rapid domestication of non-model microorganisms.

Lauren A Riley, Adam M Guss

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biotechnology for biofuels, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing 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

46 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Elucidation of the growth phenotypes of 82 strains from theFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Improving the Transformation Efficiency ofACS synthetic biology · 2025
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Genome editing in ubiquitous freshwater Actinobacteria.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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.

Lauren A RileyBiosciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, 37831, USA.
Adam M GussBiosciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, 37831, USA. gussam@ornl.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5823-5329

Funding

Bioenergy Technologies Office Agile BioFoundryBiological and Environmental Research Center for Bioenergy InnovationBiological and Environmental Research DE-SC0019401
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Non-model microorganisms often possess complex phenotypes that could be important for the future of biofuel and chemical production. They have received significant interest the last several years, but advancement is still slow due to the lack of a robust genetic toolbox in most organisms. Typically, "domestication" of a new non-model microorganism has been done on an ad hoc basis, and historically, it can take years to develop transformation and basic genetic tools. Here, we review the barriers and solutions to rapid development of genetic transformation tools in new hosts, with a major focus on Restriction-Modification systems, which are a well-known and significant barrier to efficient transformation. We further explore the tools and approaches used for efficient gene deletion, DNA insertion, and heterologous gene expression. Finally, more advanced and high-throughput tools are now being developed in diverse non-model microbes, paving the way for rapid and multiplexed genome engineering for biotechnology.

Indexed as

GeneticsGenetic toolsMetabolic engineeringNon-model microbesSynthetic biologyTransformation

Identifiers

PMID33494801
PMCPMC7830746

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.