Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36968258›Full record

ReviewEngineering biology2021

Ten future challenges for synthetic biology.

Olivia Gallup, Hia Ming, Tom Ellis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Engineering biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Cyber-biological convergence: a systematic review and future outlook.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The design and engineering of synthetic genomes.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. A new era of synthetic biology-microbial community design.Synthetic biology (Oxford, England) · 2024
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Synthetic biology landscape in the UK.Biotechnology notes (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2022
    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

3 authors.

Olivia GallupDepartment of Bioengineering Imperial College London London UK.
Hia MingDepartment of Bioengineering Imperial College London London UK.
Tom EllisDepartment of Bioengineering Imperial College London London UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5392-976X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

After 2 decades of growth and success, synthetic biology has now become a mature field that is driving significant innovation in the bioeconomy and pushing the boundaries of the biomedical sciences and biotechnology. So what comes next? In this article, 10 technological advances are discussed that are expected and hoped to come from the next generation of research and investment in synthetic biology; from ambitious projects to make synthetic life, cell simulators and custom genomes, through to new methods of engineering biology that use automation, deep learning and control of evolution. The non-exhaustive list is meant to inspire those joining the field and looks forward to how synthetic biology may evolve over the coming decades.

Indexed as

artificial lifeautomationbio‐economybiosensorsbiotechnologygenome engineeringgenomicsindustrylearning (artificial intelligence)microbial engineeringreviewssustainable developmentsynthetic biology

Identifiers

PMID36968258
PMCPMC9996719

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.