Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42124363›Full record

ReviewFEBS open bio2026

Directed evolution of enzymes at the crossroads of tradition and innovation.

Maria Tomkova, Andrej Mirossay, Erik Sedlak

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in FEBS open bio, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Maria TomkovaCenter for Interdisciplinary Biosciences, P. J. Šafárik University in Košice, Košice, Slovakia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-6448-1580
Andrej MirossayDepartment of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, P. J. Šafárik University in Košice, Košice, Slovakia.
Erik SedlakCenter for Interdisciplinary Biosciences, P. J. Šafárik University in Košice, Košice, Slovakia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1290-5774

Funding

NextGenerationEU 09I01-03-V04-00041
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Directed evolution has become a central methodology for engineering proteins with improved or entirely new functions, enabling applications across biotechnology, medicine, and synthetic chemistry. By iteratively coupling genetic diversification with screening or selection, directed evolution allows functional optimization even when detailed structural or mechanistic knowledge is unavailable. While display-based selection platforms have enabled the efficient evolution of binders from extremely large libraries, enzyme evolution relies primarily on quantitative screening strategies that preserve genotype-phenotype linkage, often through compartmentalization. This review focuses primarily on enzyme directed evolution, using binder evolution as a comparative reference point to highlight key methodological differences and parallel advances. Major technological advances-including in vitro emulsions, droplet microfluidics, ultrahigh-throughput sorting, genetically encoded biosensors, and alternative detection modalities-have dramatically expanded screening capacity and analytical resolution. We also discuss why stability remains a central constraint on evolvability, why assay design continues to limit translational relevance, and how failures such as surrogate-substrate bias, droplet leakage, tracking errors, and overfitted machine-learning models can misdirect campaigns. By integrating classical strategies with emerging continuous and data-driven approaches, enzyme directed evolution is moving toward more predictive, automated, and industrially translatable workflows.

Indexed as

biocatalystsdirected evolutionprotein engineeringscreeningselection

Identifiers

PMID42124363
PMCPMC13399097

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.