ReviewSynthetic biology (Oxford, England)2023
Advancing reproducibility can ease the 'hard truths' of synthetic biology.
Review in Synthetic biology (Oxford, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Causes and consequences of experimental variation in Nicotiana benthamiana transient expression.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Design biology and mind-body health.Journal, genetic engineering & biotechnology · 2025Review
- Construction of aACS omega · 2025Article
- Engineering Useful Microbial Species for Pharmaceutical Applications.Microorganisms · 2025Review
- Biosensor characterization: formal methods from the perspective of proteome fractions.Synthetic biology (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Engineering biology and automation-Replicability as a design principle.Engineering biology · 2024Review
- DetSpace: a web server for engineering detectable pathways for bio-based chemical production.Nucleic acids research · 2024Article
- Special issue: reproducibility in synthetic biology.Synthetic biology (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reproducibility has been identified as an outstanding challenge in science, and the field of synthetic biology is no exception. Meeting this challenge is critical to allow the transformative technological capabilities emerging from this field to reach their full potential to benefit the society. We discuss the current state of reproducibility in synthetic biology and how improvements can address some of the central shortcomings in the field. We argue that the successful adoption of reproducibility as a routine aspect of research and development requires commitment spanning researchers and relevant institutions via education, incentivization and investment in related infrastructure. The urgency of this topic pervades synthetic biology as it strives to advance fundamental insights and unlock new capabilities for safe, secure and scalable applications of biotechnology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.