Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33785746›Full record

ArticleNature communications2021

Single strain control of microbial consortia.

Alex J H Fedorec, Behzad D Karkaria, Michael Sulu, Chris P Barnes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Bacteriocins fromFrontiers in microbiology · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Microbial production ofSynthetic and systems biotechnology · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Chaos in synthetic microbial communities.PLoS computational biology · 2022
    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

4 authors.

Alex J H FedorecDepartment of Cell and Developmental Biology, University College London, London, UK. alexander.fedorec.13@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-0165-1705
Behzad D KarkariaDepartment of Cell and Developmental Biology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2627-9794
Michael SuluDepartment of Biochemical Engineering, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0982-9758
Chris P BarnesDepartment of Cell and Developmental Biology, University College London, London, UK. christopher.barnes@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-9459-1395

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilWellcome TrustWellcome Trust 209409/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The scope of bioengineering is expanding from the creation of single strains to the design of microbial communities, allowing for division-of-labour, specialised sub-populations and interaction with "wild" microbiomes. However, in the absence of stabilising interactions, competition between microbes inevitably leads to the removal of less fit community members over time. Here, we leverage amensalism and competitive exclusion to stabilise a two-strain community by engineering a strain of Escherichia coli which secretes a toxin in response to competition. We show experimentally and mathematically that such a system can produce stable populations with a composition that is tunable by easily controllable parameters. This system creates a tunable, stable two-strain consortia while only requiring the engineering of a single strain.

Indexed as

BacteriocinsBioengineeringEscherichia coliMicrobial ConsortiaMicrobial InteractionsMicrobiotaModels, BiologicalBacteriocins

Identifiers

PMID33785746
PMCPMC8010080

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.