Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36714378›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Chemistry2023

DNA synthesis technologies to close the gene writing gap.

Alex Hoose, Richard Vellacott, Marko Storch, Paul S Freemont, Maxim G Ryadnov

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Chemistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 102 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
102citing 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

102 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Engineering a Virus-Derived X Family DNA Polymerase FvPolX for de novo DNA Synthesis.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Chemputer and chemputation-A universal chemical compound synthesis machine.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Alex HooseNational Physical Laboratory, Teddington, Middlesex UK.
Richard VellacottBiologIC Technologies, Cambridge, UK.
Marko StorchLondon Biofoundry, Translation and Innovation Hub, Imperial College White City Campus, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1503-8282
Paul S FreemontLondon Biofoundry, Translation and Innovation Hub, Imperial College White City Campus, London, UK.
Maxim G RyadnovNational Physical Laboratory, Teddington, Middlesex UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4847-1154

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Synthetic DNA is of increasing demand across many sectors of research and commercial activities. Engineering biology, therapy, data storage and nanotechnology are set for rapid developments if DNA can be provided at scale and low cost. Stimulated by successes in next generation sequencing and gene editing technologies, DNA synthesis is already a burgeoning industry. However, the synthesis of >200 bp sequences remains unaffordable. To overcome these limitations and start writing DNA as effectively as it is read, alternative technologies have been developed including molecular assembly and cloning methods, template-independent enzymatic synthesis, microarray and rolling circle amplification techniques. Here, we review the progress in developing and commercializing these technologies, which are exemplified by innovations from leading companies. We discuss pros and cons of each technology, the need for oversight and regulatory policies for DNA synthesis as a whole and give an overview of DNA synthesis business models.

Indexed as

DNASynthetic biology

Identifiers

PMID36714378
PMCPMC9869848

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.