ReviewSeminars in cell & developmental biology2025
Why cellular computations challenge our design principles.
Review in Seminars in cell & developmental biology, 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.
- Growth control as a central regulator for tuning the cellular context.Journal of biological engineering · 2026Article
- Exploring the computing power of microbes that shapes the environment.Current opinion in microbiology · 2026Review
- Intracellularly coupled oscillators for synthetic biology.Nature communications · 2025Review
- Parameter Evolvability in Gene Expression Models Drives Phenotypic Adaptation.ALIFE : proceedings of the artificial life conference. International Conference on Artificial Life · 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
Biological systems inherently perform computations, inspiring synthetic biologists to engineer biological systems capable of executing predefined computational functions for diverse applications. Typically, this involves applying principles from the design of conventional silicon-based computers to create novel biological systems, such as genetic Boolean gates and circuits. However, the natural evolution of biological computation has not adhered to these principles, and this distinction warrants careful consideration. Here, we explore several concepts connecting computational theory, living cells, and computers, which may offer insights into the development of increasingly sophisticated biological computations. While conventional computers approach theoretical limits, solving nearly all problems that are computationally solvable, biological computers have the opportunity to outperform them in specific niches and problem domains. Crucially, biocomputation does not necessarily need to scale to rival or replicate the capabilities of electronic computation. Rather, efforts to re-engineer biology must recognise that life has evolved and optimised itself to solve specific problems using its own principles. Consequently, intelligently designed cellular computations will diverge from traditional computing in both implementation and application.
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.