Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36120530›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in genome editing2022

Bacterial genome reductions: Tools, applications, and challenges.

Nicole LeBlanc, Trevor C Charles

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in genome editing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Reductive evolution and genomic reduction inApplied and environmental microbiology · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Genome reduction inFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Investigation of Genome Biology by Synthetic Genome Engineering.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
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

2 authors.

Nicole LeBlancDepartment of Biology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
Trevor C CharlesDepartment of Biology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bacterial cells are widely used to produce value-added products due to their versatility, ease of manipulation, and the abundance of genome engineering tools. However, the efficiency of producing these desired biomolecules is often hindered by the cells' own metabolism, genetic instability, and the toxicity of the product. To overcome these challenges, genome reductions have been performed, making strains with the potential of serving as chassis for downstream applications. Here we review the current technologies that enable the design and construction of such reduced-genome bacteria as well as the challenges that limit their assembly and applicability. While genomic reductions have shown improvement of many cellular characteristics, a major challenge still exists in constructing these cells efficiently and rapidly. Computational tools have been created in attempts at minimizing the time needed to design these organisms, but gaps still exist in modelling these reductions

Indexed as

bacteriagenome engineeringgenome reductionminimal genomesynthetic biology

Identifiers

PMID36120530
PMCPMC9473318

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.