Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34420034›Full record

ReviewThe ISME journal2022

Solutions in microbiome engineering: prioritizing barriers to organism establishment.

Michaeline B N Albright, Stilianos Louca, Daniel E Winkler, Kelli L Feeser, Sarah-Jane Haig, Katrine L Whiteson, Joanne B Emerson, John Dunbar

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The ISME journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed
9.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

79 citing papers in PubMed, 172 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Targeted and quantitatively modeled biologic delivery via dual-functional probiotic yeast in inflammatory bowel disease.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2026
    Article
  5. Functional gut microbiomes enhance performance in house fly larvae.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Michaeline B N AlbrightBioscience Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, USA. malbright@lanl.gov.
Stilianos LoucaDepartment of Biology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA.
Daniel E WinklerUnited States Geological Survey, Southwest Biological Science Center, Moab, UT, USA.
Kelli L FeeserBioscience Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4144-0294
Sarah-Jane HaigDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0004-8894
Katrine L WhitesonDepartment of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5423-6014
Joanne B EmersonDepartment of Plant Pathology, University of California, Davis, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9983-5566
John DunbarBioscience Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, USA.
Los Alamos National Laboratory · USUnited States Geological Survey · USUniversity of California, Davis · USUniversity of California, Irvine · USUniversity of Oregon · USUniversity of Pittsburgh · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microbiome engineering is increasingly being employed as a solution to challenges in health, agriculture, and climate. Often manipulation involves inoculation of new microbes designed to improve function into a preexisting microbial community. Despite, increased efforts in microbiome engineering inoculants frequently fail to establish and/or confer long-lasting modifications on ecosystem function. We posit that one underlying cause of these shortfalls is the failure to consider barriers to organism establishment. This is a key challenge and focus of macroecology research, specifically invasion biology and restoration ecology. We adopt a framework from invasion biology that summarizes establishment barriers in three categories: (1) propagule pressure, (2) environmental filtering, and (3) biotic interactions factors. We suggest that biotic interactions is the most neglected factor in microbiome engineering research, and we recommend a number of actions to accelerate engineering solutions.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaAgricultureEcology

Identifiers

PMID34420034
PMCPMC8776856
OpenAlexW3194207534

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.