ArticlePloS one2021
Comparative analysis of three studies measuring fluorescence from engineered bacterial genetic constructs.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- An integrated engineering worldview of synthetic biology education through the lens of webinar based pedagogy.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Interlaboratory Reproducibility in Growth and Reporter Expression in the CyanobacteriumACS synthetic biology · 2023Article
- Engineering Escherichia coli to Utilize Erythritol as Sole Carbon Source.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2023Article
- PLATERO: A calibration protocol for plate reader green fluorescence measurements.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Machine Learning Guided Batched Design of a Bacterial Ribosome Binding Site.ACS synthetic biology · 2022Article
- A FAIR-compliant parts catalogue for genome engineering and expression control inSynthetic and systems biotechnology · 2022Article
- Ten simple rules for building an enthusiastic iGEM team.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- Multicolor plate reader fluorescence calibration.Synthetic biology (Oxford, England) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reproducibility is a key challenge of synthetic biology, but the foundation of reproducibility is only as solid as the reference materials it is built upon. Here we focus on the reproducibility of fluorescence measurements from bacteria transformed with engineered genetic constructs. This comparative analysis comprises three large interlaboratory studies using flow cytometry and plate readers, identical genetic constructs, and compatible unit calibration protocols. Across all three studies, we find similarly high precision in the calibrants used for plate readers. We also find that fluorescence measurements agree closely across the flow cytometry results and two years of plate reader results, with an average standard deviation of 1.52-fold, while the third year of plate reader results are consistently shifted by more than an order of magnitude, with an average shift of 28.9-fold. Analyzing possible sources of error indicates this shift is due to incorrect preparation of the fluorescein calibrant. These findings suggest that measuring fluorescence from engineered constructs is highly reproducible, but also that there is a critical need for access to quality controlled fluorescent calibrants for plate readers.
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.