ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026
Comparing metabolic engineering scenarios using simulated design-build-test-learn-cycles.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Design-Build-Test-Learn (DBTL) cycles are a widely employed engineering framework in metabolic engineering. Nonetheless, their performance depends on a wide range of experimental and algorithmic design choices, whose combined effects on the successful optimization of microbial strains remain an open question. Methods: In this study, we performed in silico DBTL cycles based on metabolic kinetic models to quantitatively assess how key process parameters affect strain optimization outcomes across four distinct metabolic pathway models. This includes parameters governing DNA library design, experimental budget limitations, and machine learning configuration. Results: The results show that screening capacity is a dominant driver of optimization success, whereas DNA sequencing capacity has surprisingly little impact, despite its importance for model training. Selecting top-producing strains for sequencing consistently outperforms stratified sampling, highlighting a trade-off between predictive accuracy and optimization efficiency. DNA library structure strongly affects performance: increasing the number of editable positions generally improves outcomes, while expanding the set of gene targets can hinder optimization due to increased dimensionality or sparse sampling. Discussion: Together, these findings offer actionable guidance for designing more effective DBTL workflows and underscore the value of simulation frameworks for exploring metabolic engineering strategies prior to experimental implementation.
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.