ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026
Discerning dangerous gain of function: most gain of function (GoF) research does not involve infectious microbes.
Review 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The evolution of the United States nucleic acid screening policies.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The article reviews the use of the term "gain of function" (GoF) and "dangerous gain of function" (DGoF) in both the regulatory space relevant to the United States of America and the biomedical literature.
methodsWe identified nearly 20,100 papers in PubMed which mentioned "gain of function" in the title or abstract. Through a series of machine and human evaluations, these were resolved to 145 that appeared to be dangerous gain of function (DGoF). In addition, we evaluated some papers that did not mention gain of function but involved expression of recombinant sequences of concern (SoCs) in heterologous microbes where the latter is endowed with pathogenic or toxic function as a result of the transfer. For 22 viral GoF papers, we discuss criteria leading to determinations of whether DGoF occurred with reference to the seven DURC criteria and discuss challenges in evaluating them. PRINCIPAL
findingsWe found that the overwhelming majority of the use of the "gain of function" term is not concerned with dangerous gain of function research. Less than 1% of the articles that use the GoF term discuss DGoF research. Over 40% of those are review or policy papers that do not deal with empirical research. Of the remaining experimental GoF articles, the majority involve antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in pathogens. In addition, it appears that most research that could be considered as DGoF according to the seven criteria for dual use research of concern (DURC) is not characterized by the authors as GoF.
conclusions1) most GoF research is not DGoF, 2) most DGoF is not referenced with the GoF term, and 3) discerning DGoF from GoF is not always straightforward but is helped by recognition rubrics, particularly the DURC criteria, as well as examples of SoCs with written functional definitions.
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.