Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40206504›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genetics2025

Natural vs. genetically engineered microbiomes: understanding public attitudes for indoor applications and pathways for future engagement.

Christopher L Cummings, Kristen D Landreville, Jennifer Kuzma

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Christopher L CummingsGenetic Engineering and Society Center, Raleigh, NC, United States.
Kristen D LandrevilleGenetic Engineering and Society Center, Raleigh, NC, United States.
Jennifer KuzmaGenetic Engineering and Society Center, Raleigh, NC, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

built environmentgenetic engineeringmicrobiome engineeringpublic perceptionsresponsible research and innovation (RRI)

Identifiers

PMID40206504
PMCPMC11979166

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.