ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026
Developing a standard definition for sequences of concern.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementing emerging customer screening standards for nucleic acid synthesis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Compounding asymmetries in nucleic acid synthesis screening: policy pathways for strengthening global biosecurity governance.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Readily available nucleic acid synthesis is both critical for the bioeconomy and an increasingly pressing security concern due to the potential for accidental or deliberate misuse. While biosecurity experts broadly agree that nucleic acid providers should screen orders for potential "sequences of concern," there has previously been no agreed standard for how to define and recognize such sequences. To address this gap, we first organized a collection of test sets containing 1.1 million sequences from pathogens and toxins on the Australia Group Common Control Lists and their non-controlled relatives, along with model organisms and synthetic constructs. An initial categorization of sequences as to whether or not they were sequences of concern was produced by comparing the results of four biosecurity screening systems for each of these sequences, finding that these systems already agreed on the categorization of more than 80% of sequences. We then refined these results through a science-based stakeholder review process to define a rubric for determining whether a sequence should be flagged as a potential sequence of concern, then applied this rubric to improve the categorization of sequences in test sets. The result is a rubric that identifies sequences of concern with respect to human pandemic-potential viruses, key classes of low-risk genes, and controlled toxins. Applying this rubric to the test set collection has, to date, reduced the number of test sequences with disputed categorization by 44.3% for controlled viruses and 10.7% across the collection of test sets as a whole. Together, the rubric and the test sets provide a concrete "sequence of concern" definition that can be used as a foundation for development of biosecurity screening standards and policy and is also continuing to be refined in ongoing work.
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.