Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42422169›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026

Red-teaming as an imperative for strengthening synthetic nucleic acid screening.

Yousuf Khan, Ketan Thorat

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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. 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

2 authors.

Yousuf KhanInstitute for Stem Cell Science and Regenerative Medicine, Bengaluru, India.
Ketan ThoratInstitute for Stem Cell Science and Regenerative Medicine, Bengaluru, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Synthetic Nucleic Acid Technologies (SNAT) have provided unprecedented precision to engineer life and are poised to transform small-molecule manufacturing, the circular economy, health security, and food security. Yet the rapid fall in synthesis costs, the convergence with AI, and the growing democratisation of SNAT have raised significant biosecurity concerns, particularly regarding the potential misuse of this technology for nefarious purposes. As a result, the global biosecurity discourse has increasingly emphasised the need for robust oversight mechanisms to ensure that SNAT is not exploited to create biological agents with large-scale destructive potential. Current oversight mechanisms rely on sequence-of-concern (SoC) screening, customer vetting, and voluntary compliance frameworks. However, these strategies have documented limitations, including static SoC databases, bypass pathways, and gaps that widen as SNAT capabilities become more distributed and adaptable. The literature contains multiple examples of how existing safeguards can miss dangerous constructs. This makes it imperative to identify shortcomings in extant screening tools and rethink SNAT regulatory strategies toward more proactive and dynamic approaches. Red-teaming, widely used in military planning, cybersecurity, and risk management, employs controlled adversarial testing to identify vulnerabilities before they can be exploited. There has been little effort to consolidate or assess the broader potential of red-teaming in the context of SNAT biosecurity. This article will examine current red-teaming approaches relevant to SNAT biosecurity, analyse how these methods have been applied in adjacent fields, and outline how similar principles could support more adaptive and dynamic screening frameworks.

Indexed as

adversarial testingAIxBiobiosecuritynucleic acid synthesis screeningred teamingsynthetic nucleic acids

Identifiers

PMID42422169
PMCPMC13341610

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.