Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34050012›Full record

ReviewProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2021

Synthetic threads through the web of life.

Mary E Power

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The endosymbiont ofISME communications · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Life 2.0-A CRISPR path to a sustainable planet.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    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

1 author.

Mary E PowerDepartment of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720 mepower@berkeley.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

CRISPR-Cas gene editing tools have brought us to an era of synthetic biology that will change the world. Excitement over the breakthroughs these tools have enabled in biology and medicine is balanced, justifiably, by concern over how their applications might go wrong in open environments. We do not know how genomic processes (including regulatory and epigenetic processes), evolutionary change, ecosystem interactions, and other higher order processes will affect traits, fitness, and impacts of edited organisms in nature. However, anticipating the spread, change, and impacts of edited traits or organisms in heterogeneous, changing environments is particularly important with "gene drives on the horizon." To anticipate how "synthetic threads" will affect the web of life on Earth, scientists must confront complex system interactions across many levels of biological organization. Currently, we lack plans, infrastructure, and funding for field science and scientists to track new synthetic organisms, with or without gene drives, as they move through open environments.

Indexed as

CRISPR-Cas SystemsEcosystemGene EditingModels, BiologicalSoftwareSynthetic BiologyCRISPRecological impactsgene drivesinteraction strengthscale linkages

Identifiers

PMID34050012
PMCPMC8179130

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.