ArticleFrontiers in genetics2025
Natural vs. genetically engineered microbiomes: understanding public attitudes for indoor applications and pathways for future engagement.
Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Decoding phage communication: molecular networks, evolutionary dynamics, and therapeutic applications.NPJ biofilms and microbiomes · 2026Review
- Current advances and challenges in microbiome-based mitigation of volatile organic compounds from livestock waste systems.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Experiences with household mold and perceptions of microbiome engineering to mitigate mold.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Public perceptions and support for introduced microbes to combat hospital-acquired infections and antimicrobial resistance.PloS one · 2025Article
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
This study examines public preferences for natural microbiomes and support for genetically engineered (GE) microbiomes in the built environment, focusing on the demographic, sociographic, and attitudinal factors that influence these preferences. Using data from a nationally representative survey of 1,000 U.S. adults, we employed hierarchical regression analyses to assess the relative contribution of these variables. While demographic and sociographic factors explained limited variance, topic-specific attitudes, including positive perceptions of microbiome engineering's potential to improve quality of life, were the most significant predictors of support. Conversely, age, distrust in science, and perceived knowledge negatively influenced support for GE microbiomes, reflecting skepticism among some audiences. The findings highlight the potential of the Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) framework to align the development of microbiome engineering with societal values and to address diverse public perspectives. This research provides actionable insights for policymakers, researchers, and communicators seeking to navigate the complexities of public engagement with emerging biotechnologies.
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.