Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34985735›Full record

ArticleMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2022

Best Practices for DNA Template Preparation Toward Improved Reproducibility in Cell-Free Protein Production.

Eugenia F Romantseva, Drew S Tack, Nina Alperovich, David Ross, Elizabeth A Strychalski

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Eugenia F RomantsevaNational Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA. eugenia.romantseva@nist.gov.
Drew S TackNational Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
Nina AlperovichNational Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
David RossNational Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
Elizabeth A StrychalskiNational Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Performance variability is a common challenge in cell-free protein production and hinders a wider adoption of these systems for both research and biomanufacturing. While the inherent stochasticity and complexity of biology likely contributes to variability, other systematic factors may also play a role, including the source and preparation of the cell extract, the composition of the supplemental reaction buffer, the facility at which experiments are conducted, and the human operator (Cole et al. ACS Synth Biol 8:2080-2091, 2019). Variability in protein production could also arise from differences in the DNA template-specifically the amount of functional DNA added to a cell-free reaction and the quality of the DNA preparation in terms of contaminants and strand breakage. Here, we present protocols and suggest best practices optimized for DNA template preparation and quantitation for cell-free systems toward reducing variability in cell-free protein production.

Indexed as

DNADNA ReplicationCell-Free SystemHumansProteinsReproducibility of ResultsDNAProteinsAutomated DNA extractionAutomated DNA purificationCell-free protein productionCell-free systemsDNA template preparationTX-TL

Identifiers

PMID34985735

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.