Organizing genome engineering for the gigabase scale

Bryan A. Bartley; Elizabeth A. Strychalski; Jacob Beal; Jonathan R. Karr

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 110 references

Organizing genome engineering for the gigabase scale

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Coordination, not DNA synthesis, may cap gigabase genome projects

desk verdict A useful, well-structured roadmap for gigabase genome engineering, but the quantitative claim that coordination is the bottleneck rests on an unreleased and confounded analysis that needs to be fixed before the paper's central argument is fully supported. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01468 v1 pith:YXI3DWRL submitted 2019-09-03 q-bio.GN

Bryan A. Bartley , Jacob Beal , Jonathan R. Karr , Elizabeth A. Strychalski This is my paper · ORCID

classification q-bio.GN

keywords genomeengineeringgigabasescaledesign-build-test-learnworkflowcoordinationdatastandardssyntheticbiologyscientificcollaborationinformationinfrastructure

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Genome engineering is approaching the megabase scale, and the paper argues that the next barrier to gigabase-scale work will not be DNA synthesis or editing but the flow of models, designs, constructs, and measurements across hundreds of investigators in many institutions. Extrapolating historical trends in engineered genome size and team size, the paper projects gigabase engineering around 2050 with roughly 500 investigators per project, a scale at which ad hoc, human-centric interfaces will break down. It recommends adopting and extending information standards, building data curation and quality-control tools, investing in modeling-design integration, and creating legal and contractual infrastructure for multi-institutional collaboration. The paper frames these as the under-recognized bottlenecks of the emerging design-build-test-learn workflow for whole-genome engineering.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the design-build-test-learn workflow, an iterative abstraction in which a genomic design is modeled and specified, physically constructed, tested for phenotype, and then used to refine models and heuristics. The paper uses two empirical scaling trends to convert this abstraction into a coordination problem: the size of the largest engineered DNA sequence has grown exponentially with a doubling time of roughly three years, and the number of investigators on a project has grown as the cube root of genome size, together projecting a gigabase project around 2050 involving about 500 people. The argument is carried by information-exchange standards such as the Synthetic Biology Open Language (a community data standard for describing genetic designs) and GFF (a hierarchical sequence feature format), which the paper identifies as the raw material for building machine-readable interfaces between workflow stages. These standards are the mechanism through which the paper claims coordination can be made routine, safe, and reliable.

What would settle it

Compile the full dataset of genome engineering projects with team sizes and genome sizes, including failed and abandoned efforts, and fit the scaling relation with uncertainty bounds; if the exponent is not near 1/3 or the trend breaks down beyond 10 Mb, the projected 500-investigator gigabase teams would not follow. A single counterexample of a megabase-scale genome completed by a small team would also weaken the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the critical under-recognized challenge for gigabase genome engineering is coordinating the flow of models, designs, constructs, and measurements across the large teams and complex technological systems such projects will require. Based on two exponential trends -- engineered DNA size doubling roughly every three years and collaboration size scaling as the cube root of genome size -- it projects gigabase-scale projects becoming feasible around 2050 with teams of about 500 investigators. At that scale, every interface between design, build, test, and learn will need machine-readable representations, shared standards, provenance tracking, and automated tooling; synthesis throughput alone will not suffice. The paper therefore recommends four coordinated investments: extending existing standards for representing and exchanging genomic design information, developing new data curation and quality-control technologies, pursuing fundamental research on integrating modeling with genome-scale design, and developing legal and contractual frameworks to support multi-institution collaboration.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's strongest conclusion depends on its unshown Figure 1B trend that investigator count scales as the cube root of genome size, extrapolated to a gigabase project with about 500 people; if that scaling flattens or is steeper at large scale, the coordination bottleneck may be much smaller or larger than projected.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the coordination bottleneck is real, even major advances in DNA synthesis and editing will not by themselves make gigabase projects feasible; information infrastructure is a co-requisite.
Adopting and extending sequence-feature formats and synthetic biology description languages across design, build, test, and learn would reduce friction at each handoff and make workflows automatable.
Data curation and quality-control technologies, including standard fitness metrics and calibration methods, are necessary for cross-laboratory comparison at gigabase scale.
Integrating modeling with design at genomic scale is an open research problem whose solution would enable CAD-like reliable design of entire genomes.
New legal and contractual infrastructure, such as tiered licenses and automated material transfer agreements, is needed to allow many institutions to collaborate without bespoke negotiations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same coordination logic likely applies to other large-scale integrative bioscience efforts, such as whole-cell modeling or multi-omic atlases, suggesting that information-management standards are a shared bottleneck across biology.
The paper's own hope that workflow improvements will reverse the team-size scaling trend suggests a testable prediction: if the recommended infrastructure is built, future megabase projects should show a flattening in per-base investigator counts within a decade.
A complementary quantitative extension would be to model the cost of coordination (e.g., person-hours spent on data transfer, reconciliation, and legal review) and ask whether it dominates synthesis cost at projected gigabase scales.
The cube-root collaboration scaling, if it reflects communication overhead, might be a general property of large engineered systems (software, aerospace), implying lessons could flow into genome engineering from those fields rather than only out.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This is a perspective, not a research paper, and it is honest about that. The authors are central people in the synthetic biology standards community, and they have written a clear, well-organized roadmap for what needs to happen to move from megabase to gigabase genome engineering. The DBTL framing is not new, but the paper does something useful: it goes through each interface in the workflow and lists specific standards, tools, and legal instruments that could be adopted, extended, or researched. The legal/contractual section is a nice addition that most roadmaps skip.

Where I part company is Figure 1B and the claim that a gigabase project will need roughly 500 investigators. That number is load-bearing—it is what turns 'coordination is hard' into 'coordination is the bottleneck.' But the data are not in the manuscript (they are promised in Supplementary Data 1, which is not available in the arXiv version), there are no error bars or alternative fits, and the proxy used for 'collaboration size' is the number of authors on milestone papers. Author counts have been inflating across all of science for decades, and since genome size is also increasing with time, the apparent cube-root scaling may just be a shared time trend. The stress-test note is right: the 500-investigator projection is not demonstrated. That said, the paper's central point does not collapse if the number is wrong—coordination of large teams is still a real problem—but the quantitative grounding is gone and the claim becomes a plausible assertion.

On self-citation: the authors recommend SBOL and other tools they co-developed, and they cite their own work heavily. That is not a flaw in the recommendations—the standards are widely used and the citations are legitimate—but the 'no competing interests' declaration is too clean. A simple conflict-of-interest statement would fix it.

For whom: people planning synthetic genome projects, funders, and standards developers will get real value from the workflow inventory and Table 1. It deserves to be peer-reviewed, but a referee should insist on the Figure 1 data with error analysis and a discussion of confounds, or at least a recalibration of the claim from 'roughly 500' to something like 'hundreds to thousands, with considerable uncertainty.' As it stands, it is a good roadmap with an unsupported headline number.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This perspective paper argues that, as genome engineering scales from megabase to gigabase projects, a major under-recognized bottleneck will be the coordination of models, designs, constructs, and measurements across large, multi-institutional teams. It supports this claim with Figure 1, showing exponential growth in engineered genome size and in collaboration size, and projects that gigabase engineering may become feasible around 2050 with teams of roughly 500 investigators. The paper then analyzes the design-build-test-learn workflow, identifies integration gaps at each stage, and recommends four priorities: adopting and extending existing standards (e.g., SBOL, GFF, FASTQ, SBML, CWL, PROV-O), developing new data curation and quality-control technologies, investing in model-design integration, and building legal and contractual infrastructure. The detailed gap analysis is summarized in Table 1 and Section 3.

Significance. If the coordination-bottleneck claim is correct, the paper usefully redirects attention from DNA synthesis and editing throughput toward information infrastructure, standards, shared repositories, and collaboration mechanisms, with implications for consortium design and funding priorities. The manuscript's main strengths are its comprehensive mapping of existing standards and tools, its concrete and categorized recommendations in Table 1, and its attention to both technical and legal/organizational interfaces. The central claim is, in principle, falsifiable through the Figure 1 trends, but the current empirical basis is not reproducible because the dataset and fitting procedure are unreported and the extrapolation is sensitive to well-known confounds. The paper is therefore better viewed as a valuable roadmap whose central quantitative justification either needs stronger evidence or explicit re-scoping as an illustrative projection.

major comments (3)

[Section 1, Figure 1B] The sentence stating that collaboration size scales with the cube root of genome size, 'suggesting that teams on the order of 500 investigators will be needed to engineer gigabase genomes,' is load-bearing for the paper's central claim, but the dataset, fitting procedure, goodness-of-fit, and uncertainty bounds are not reported. The text refers only to Supplementary Data 1, which is not included in the arXiv submission. Please provide the underlying data and methods, including R-squared, confidence or prediction intervals, and a comparison with alternative functional forms; alternatively, explicitly state that the 500-investigator figure is an illustrative extrapolation rather than a measurement, and temper the abstract's 'we find' claim accordingly.
[Section 1, Figure 1B] Using author count as 'collaboration size' confounds the team-size effect with the well-documented secular increase in authorship per paper across all scientific fields. Because the milestone genome sizes in the figure are also ordered by time, the apparent cube-root relationship may reflect a common temporal trend rather than a mechanistic link between genome size and required team size. The authors should control for publication year, compare against field-specific baseline authorship inflation, or use alternative measures such as numbers of institutions or funded principal investigators; absent such controls, the 500-investigator projection is not quantitatively grounded.
[Section 4] The paper states that 'as workflow technologies improve, we anticipate that the trends of Figure 1B will eventually reverse, enabling high-fidelity whole-genome engineering at a modest cost.' This sits in tension with the use of the same trend in Section 1 to project a 500-investigator requirement. If the trend is expected to reverse under the recommended investments, the projection is a scenario conditional on the absence of those investments, not a forecast. Please clarify the status of the projection and how the recommended actions would change the trajectory.

minor comments (6)

[Section 1] The phrase 'the challenges of managing the complex workflows and large teams needed for genome engineering not previously been analyzed' appears to be missing an auxiliary verb; it should read 'have not previously been analyzed.'
[Section 2] There are small typographical errors: 'Synthetic Biology Open Langauge' should be 'Language,' and the text later spells 'Saccharomyces cerevesiae' instead of 'Saccharomyces cerevisiae.'
[Section 3.2] The sentence about assembly scars reads 'such as scars, such as occur may occur with Golden Gate Assembly [54] or MoClo [55]'; the duplicated 'such as' and 'occur' should be cleaned up.
[Section 3.7] The manuscript uses British spelling ('licences') in this section while the rest of the paper uses American spelling; please harmonize spelling conventions throughout.
[Section 5] The competing-interests declaration should be revisited given that several authors have leadership roles in developing SBOL and related standards that the manuscript recommends adopting and extending; even if no financial conflict exists, an explicit disclosure of this intellectual stake would improve transparency.
[Figure 1] The figure is not self-contained without the underlying data points and fitting details; consider adding a caption note on data availability beyond the reference to Supplementary Data 1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation found: the coordination argument rests on external trend data and workflow analysis; self-citations appear only in recommendations, not as load-bearing premises.

full rationale

This paper is a perspective/roadmap rather than a mathematical derivation. Its central claim that coordination is a major under-recognized challenge is supported by Figure 1, an extrapolation of externally reported genome-engineering milestones with data in Supplementary Data 1, and by a qualitative design-build-test-learn workflow analysis. The 500-investigator estimate is the fitted cube-root trend evaluated at gigabase scale; that is extrapolation, not a reduction of the conclusion to the input. No equation is defined in terms of the conclusion, no fitted parameter is renamed as an independent prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The authors do recommend standards and tools they co-developed, such as SBOL, SBOL 2.2, BpForms, and whole-cell modeling, with self-citations; however, these are normative recommendations about interoperability needs, not premises from which the coordination argument is derived. Weaknesses in the author-count proxy, the unreported fitting procedure, and the absence of uncertainty quantification are evidence-quality and correctness concerns, not circularity. Thus no significant circularity is identified; the score of 2 reflects minor, non-load-bearing self-citation in the recommendations rather than any circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on empirical trends that are presented as fitted relationships (with the data not supplied) and on domain assumptions about workflows and the scalability of standards. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

Collaboration scaling exponent = ~1/3
Derived from Figure 1B: team size scales with cube root of genome size. This trend is used to project ~500 investigators for a gigabase genome.
Genome size doubling time = ~3 years
From Figure 1A: largest engineered genome size doubles approximately every three years. Used to project gigabase feasibility by 2050.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The design-build-test-learn (DBTL) cycle is the appropriate abstraction for genome engineering workflows.
Section 2 frames all genome engineering in terms of DBTL; if a different workflow paradigm is needed at gigabase scale, the gaps identified may not be the right ones.
domain assumption Information transfer across interfaces is a major bottleneck that can be addressed by standards and automation.
The paper asserts this throughout, but it is not proven; it is the premise of the central claim.
domain assumption Existing standards (SBOL, GFF, etc.) can be extended to gigabase scale.
Section 3 recommends adopting or extending existing standards, assuming they are scalable to gigabase genomes without fundamental changes.
domain assumption Historical exponential trends in DNA synthesis and team size will continue.
Figure 1 extrapolates past trends to 2050; if progress slows or accelerates, the predictions change.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Organizing genome engineering for the gigabase scale." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YXI3DWRL

@misc{pith2026190901468,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Organizing genome engineering for the gigabase scale},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YXI3DWRL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01468}
}

read the original abstract

Engineering the entire genome of an organism enables large-scale changes in organization, function, and external interactions, with significant implications for industry, medicine, and the environment. Improvements to DNA synthesis and organism engineering are already enabling substantial changes to organisms with megabase genomes, such as Escherichia coli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Simultaneously, recent advances in genome-scale modeling are increasingly informing the design of metabolic networks. However, major challenges remain for integrating these and other relevant technologies into workflows that can scale to the engineering of gigabase genomes. In particular, we find that a major under-recognized challenge is coordinating the flow of models, designs, constructs, and measurements across the large teams and complex technological systems that will likely be required for gigabase genome engineering. We recommend that the community address these challenges by 1) adopting and extending existing standards and technologies for representing and exchanging information at the gigabase genomic scale, 2) developing new technologies to address major open questions around data curation and quality control, 3) conducting fundamental research on the integration of modeling and design at the genomic scale, and 4) developing new legal and contractual infrastructure to better enable collaboration across multiple institutions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01468 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** As capabilities for genome engineering advance rapidly, the size of teams involved in each genome engineering project also increase. (a) From 1980 to present, the size of the largest engineered genomes has grown exponentially, doubling approximately every three years. Extrapolating this trend projects gigabase engineering becoming feasible by 2050. (b) The sizes of the teams needed to produce these genomes has also … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The emerging design-build-test-learn workflow for genome engineering is shown schematically with current (solid arrows) and predicted (transparent arrows) tasks, interfaces (circles), and digital (white cylinders) and physical (black cylinders) repositories [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

[1]

The Genome Project-Write

Boeke, JD, Church, G, Hessel, A, Kelley, NJ, Arkin, A, Cai, Y, Carlson, R, Chakravarti, A, Cornish, VW, Holt, L, et al. The Genome Project-Write. Science 353, 126–127 (2016)

2016
[2]

Biology Is Technology : The Promise, Peril, and New Business of Engineering Life (Harvard University Press, 2011)

Carlson, RH. Biology Is Technology : The Promise, Peril, and New Business of Engineering Life (Harvard University Press, 2011)

2011
[3]

Synthetic DNA synthesis and assembly: putting the synthetic in syn- thetic biology

Hughes, RA & Ellington, AD. Synthetic DNA synthesis and assembly: putting the synthetic in syn- thetic biology. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology 9, a023812 (2017)

2017
[4]

Beyond editing to writing large genomes

Chari, R & Church, GM. Beyond editing to writing large genomes. Nature Reviews Genetics 18, 749 (2017)

2017
[5]

Total synthesis of a gene

Khorana, HG. Total synthesis of a gene. Science 203, 614–625 (1979)

1979
[6]

A totally synthetic plasmid for general cloning, gene expression and mutagenesis in Escherichia coli

Mandecki, W, Hayden, MA, Shallcross, MA & Stotland, E. A totally synthetic plasmid for general cloning, gene expression and mutagenesis in Escherichia coli. Gene 94, 103–107 (1990)

1990
[7]

Single-step assembly of a gene and entire plasmid from large numbers of oligodeoxyribonucleotides

Stemmer, WP, Crameri, A, Ha, KD, Brennan, TM & Heyneker, HL. Single-step assembly of a gene and entire plasmid from large numbers of oligodeoxyribonucleotides. Gene 164, 49–53 (1995)

1995
[8]

Chemical synthesis of poliovirus cDNA: generation of infectious virus in the absence of natural template

Cello, J, Paul, AV & Wimmer, E. Chemical synthesis of poliovirus cDNA: generation of infectious virus in the absence of natural template. Science 297, 1016–1018 (2002)

2002

Show all 110 references

[9]

Accurate multiplex gene synthesis from programmable DNA microchips

Tian, J, Gong, H, Sheng, N, Zhou, X, Gulari, E, Gao, X & Church, G. Accurate multiplex gene synthesis from programmable DNA microchips. Nature 432, 1050 (2004)

2004
[10]

Total synthesis of long DNA sequences: synthesis of a contiguous 32-kb polyketide synthase gene cluster

Kodumal, SJ, Patel, KG, Reid, R, Menzella, HG, Welch, M & Santi, DV. Total synthesis of long DNA sequences: synthesis of a contiguous 32-kb polyketide synthase gene cluster. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101, 15573–15578 (2004)

2004
[11]

Complete chemical synthesis, assembly, and cloning of a Mycoplasma genitalium genome

Gibson, DG, Benders, GA, Andrews-Pfannkoch, C, Denisova, EA, Baden-Tillson, H, Zaveri, J, Stock- well, TB, Brownley, A, Thomas, DW, Algire, MA, et al. Complete chemical synthesis, assembly, and cloning of a Mycoplasma genitalium genome. Science 319, 1215–1220 (2008)

2008
[12]

Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized genome

Gibson, DG, Glass, JI, Lartigue, C, Noskov, VN, Chuang, R-Y, Algire, MA, Benders, GA, Montague, MG, Ma, L, Moodie, MM, et al. Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized genome. Science 329, 52–56 (2010)

2010
[13]

Design, synthesis, and testing toward a 57-codon genome

Ostrov, N, Landon, M, Guell, M, Kuznetsov, G, Teramoto, J, Cervantes, N, Zhou, M, Singh, K, Napolitano, MG, Moosburner, M, et al. Design, synthesis, and testing toward a 57-codon genome. Science 353, 819–822 (2016). 13

2016
[14]

Total synthesis of Escherichia coli with a recoded genome

Fredens, J, Wang, K, de la Torre, D, Funke, LF, Robertson, WE, Christova, Y, Chia, T, Schmied, WH, Dunkelmann, DL, Ber´ anek, V,et al. Total synthesis of Escherichia coli with a recoded genome. Nature 569, 514 (2019)

2019
[15]

Large-scale recoding of a bacterial genome by iterative recombineering of synthetic DNA

Lau, YH, Stirling, F, Kuo, J, Karrenbelt, MA, Chan, YA, Riesselman, A, Horton, CA, Sch¨ afer, E, Lips, D, Weinstock, MT, et al. Large-scale recoding of a bacterial genome by iterative recombineering of synthetic DNA. Nucleic Acids Research 45, 6971–6980 (2017)

2017
[16]

Synthetic chromosome arms function in yeast and generate phenotypic diversity by design

Dymond, JS, Richardson, SM, Coombes, CE, Babatz, T, Muller, H, Annaluru, N, Blake, WJ, Schwerz- mann, JW, Dai, J, Lindstrom, DL, et al. Synthetic chromosome arms function in yeast and generate phenotypic diversity by design. Nature 477, 471 (2011)

2011
[17]

Total synthesis of a functional designer eukaryotic chromosome

Annaluru, N, Muller, H, Mitchell, LA, Ramalingam, S, Stracquadanio, G, Richardson, SM, Dymond, JS, Kuang, Z, Scheifele, LZ, Cooper, EM, et al. Total synthesis of a functional designer eukaryotic chromosome. Science 344, 55–58 (2014)

2014
[18]

Design of a synthetic yeast genome

Richardson, SM, Mitchell, LA, Stracquadanio, G, Yang, K, Dymond, JS, DiCarlo, JE, Lee, D, Huang, CLV, Chandrasegaran, S, Cai, Y, et al. Design of a synthetic yeast genome. Science 355, 1040–1044 (2017)

2017
[19]

Ultra-safe Cells Resistant to Natural Viruses Announced as First GP- write Grand-scale Project 2018

Write Leadership Group, TG. Ultra-safe Cells Resistant to Natural Viruses Announced as First GP- write Grand-scale Project 2018. <http://www.engineeringbiologycenter.org/press/may2018. pdf>

2018
[20]

Neal Stewart, J & Tekotte, H

Ostrov, N, Beal, J, Ellis, T, Gordon, DB, Karas, BJ, Lee, HH, Lenaghan, S, Schloss, JA, Stracquadanio, G, Trefzer, A, Bader, JS, Church, GM, Coelho, CM, Efcavitch, JW, Guell, M, Mitchell, LA, Nielsen, AA, Peck, B, Smith, AC, C. Neal Stewart, J & Tekotte, H. A technology roadma...
[21]

Needs and opportunities in bio-design automa- tion: four areas for focus

Appleton, E, Densmore, D, Madsen, C & Roehner, N. Needs and opportunities in bio-design automa- tion: four areas for focus. Current Opinion in Chemical Biology 40, 111–118 (2017)

2017
[22]

An automated design-build-test-learn pipeline for enhanced micro- bial production of ﬁne chemicals

Carbonell, P, Jervis, AJ, Robinson, CJ, Yan, C, Dunstan, M, Swainston, N, Vinaixa, M, Hollywood, KA, Currin, A, Rattray, NJ, et al. An automated design-build-test-learn pipeline for enhanced micro- bial production of ﬁne chemicals. Communications Biology 1, 66 (2018)

2018
[23]

Synthesis aided design: The biological design- build-test engineering paradigm? Biotechnology and Bioengineering 113, 7–10 (2016)

Gill, RT, Halweg-Edwards, AL, Clauset, A & Way, SF. Synthesis aided design: The biological design- build-test engineering paradigm? Biotechnology and Bioengineering 113, 7–10 (2016)

2016
[24]

Narrowing the gap between the promise and reality of polyketide synthases as a synthetic biology platform

Poust, S, Hagen, A, Katz, L & Keasling, JD. Narrowing the gap between the promise and reality of polyketide synthases as a synthetic biology platform. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 30, 32–39 (2014)

2014
[25]

From plant metabolic engineering to plant synthetic biology: The evolution of the design/build/test/learn cycle

Pouvreau, B, Vanhercke, T & Singh, S. From plant metabolic engineering to plant synthetic biology: The evolution of the design/build/test/learn cycle. Plant Science 273, 3–12 (2018)

2018
[26]

Design and synthesis of a minimal bacterial genome

Hutchison, CA, Chuang, R-Y, Noskov, VN, Assad-Garcia, N, Deerinck, TJ, Ellisman, MH, Gill, J, Kannan, K, Karas, BJ, Ma, L, et al. Design and synthesis of a minimal bacterial genome. Science 351, aad6253 (2016)

2016
[27]

The second wave of synthetic biology: from modules to systems

Purnick, PE & Weiss, R. The second wave of synthetic biology: from modules to systems. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 10, 410 (2009)

2009
[28]

The Synthetic Biology Open Language (SBOL) provides a community standard for communicating designs in synthetic biology

Galdzicki, M, Clancy, KP, Oberortner, E, Pocock, M, Quinn, JY, Rodriguez, CA, Roehner, N, Wil- son, ML, Adam, L, Anderson, JC, et al. The Synthetic Biology Open Language (SBOL) provides a community standard for communicating designs in synthetic biology. Nature Biotechnology 3...

2014
[29]

Sharing structure and function in biological design with SBOL 2.0.ACS Synthetic Biology 5, 498–506 (2016)

Roehner, N, Beal, J, Clancy, K, Bartley, B, Misirli, G, Grnberg, R, Oberortner, E, Pocock, M, Bissell, M, Madsen, C, et al. Sharing structure and function in biological design with SBOL 2.0.ACS Synthetic Biology 5, 498–506 (2016)

2016
[30]

Metabolic engineering of Saccharomyces cerevisiae for the production of n-butanol

Steen, EJ, Chan, R, Prasad, N, Myers, S, Petzold, CJ, Redding, A, Ouellet, M & Keasling, JD. Metabolic engineering of Saccharomyces cerevisiae for the production of n-butanol. Microbial Cell Factories 7, 36 (2008). 14

2008
[31]

Bio-CAD modeling and its applications in computer-aided tissue engineering

Sun, W, Starly, B, Nam, J & Darling, A. Bio-CAD modeling and its applications in computer-aided tissue engineering. Computer-Aided Design 37, 1097–1114 (2005)

2005
[32]

The International Nucleotide Sequence Database collaboration

Cochrane, G, Karsch-Mizrachi, I, Takagi, T & Sequence Database Collaboration, IN. The International Nucleotide Sequence Database collaboration. Nucleic Acids Research 44, D48–D50 (2015)

2015
[33]

Ensembl 2019

Cunningham, F, Achuthan, P, Akanni, W, Allen, J, Amode, MR, Armean, IM, Bennett, R, Bhai, J, Billis, K, Boddu, S, et al. Ensembl 2019. Nucleic Acids Research 47, D745–D751 (2018)

2018
[34]

Ensembl Genomes 2016: more genomes, more complexity

Kersey, PJ, Allen, JE, Armean, I, Boddu, S, Bolt, BJ, Carvalho-Silva, D, Christensen, M, Davis, P, Falin, LJ, Grabmueller, C, et al. Ensembl Genomes 2016: more genomes, more complexity. Nucleic Acids Research 44, D574–D580 (2015)

2015
[35]

Reference sequence (RefSeq) database at NCBI: current status, taxonomic expansion, and functional annotation

O’Leary, NA, Wright, MW, Brister, JR, Ciufo, S, Haddad, D, McVeigh, R, Rajput, B, Robbertse, B, Smith-White, B, Ako-Adjei, D, et al. Reference sequence (RefSeq) database at NCBI: current status, taxonomic expansion, and functional annotation. Nucleic Acids Research 44, D733–D7...

2015
[36]

RefSeq: an update on prokaryotic genome annotation and curation

Haft, DH, DiCuccio, M, Badretdin, A, Brover, V, Chetvernin, V, ONeill, K, Li, W, Chitsaz, F, Der- byshire, MK, Gonzales, NR, et al. RefSeq: an update on prokaryotic genome annotation and curation. Nucleic Acids Research 46, D851–D860 (2017)

2017
[37]

DNA Data Bank of Japan (DDBJ) progress report

Mashima, J, Kodama, Y, Kosuge, T, Fujisawa, T, Katayama, T, Nagasaki, H, Okuda, Y, Kaminuma, E, Ogasawara, O, Okubo, K, et al. DNA Data Bank of Japan (DDBJ) progress report. Nucleic Acids Research 44, D51–D57 (2015)

2015
[38]

Genome Data Viewer <https://www.ncbi.nlm

National Center for Biotechnology Information. Genome Data Viewer <https://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/genome/gdv/> (2019)

2019
[39]

WebGestalt 2019: gene set analysis toolkit with revamped UIs and APIs

Liao, Y, Wang, J, Jaehnig, EJ, Shi, Z & Zhang, B. WebGestalt 2019: gene set analysis toolkit with revamped UIs and APIs. Nucleic Acids Research (2019)

2019
[40]

Systematic and integrative analysis of large gene lists using DAVID bioinformatics resources

Huang, DW, Sherman, BT & Lempicki, RA. Systematic and integrative analysis of large gene lists using DAVID bioinformatics resources. Nature Protocols 4, 44 (2009)

2009
[41]

Comparison of GENCODE and RefSeq gene annotation and the impact of reference geneset on variant eﬀect prediction

Frankish, A, Uszczynska, B, Ritchie, GR, Gonzalez, JM, Pervouchine, D, Petryszak, R, Mudge, JM, Fonseca, N, Brazma, A, Guigo, R, et al. Comparison of GENCODE and RefSeq gene annotation and the impact of reference geneset on variant eﬀect prediction. BMC Genomics 16, S2 (2015)

2015
[42]

Choice of transcripts and software has a large eﬀect on variant annotation

McCarthy, DJ, Humburg, P, Kanapin, A, Rivas, MA, Gaulton, K, Cazier, J-B & Donnelly, P. Choice of transcripts and software has a large eﬀect on variant annotation. Genome Medicine 6, 26 (2014)

2014
[43]

in The Gene Ontology Handbook 245–259 (Humana Press, New York, NY, 2017)

Chibucos, MC, Siegele, DA, Hu, JC & Giglio, M. in The Gene Ontology Handbook 245–259 (Humana Press, New York, NY, 2017)

2017
[44]

The Sequence Ontology: a tool for the uniﬁcation of genome annotations

Eilbeck, K, Lewis, SE, Mungall, CJ, Yandell, M, Stein, L, Durbin, R & Ashburner, M. The Sequence Ontology: a tool for the uniﬁcation of genome annotations. Genome biology 6, R44 (2005)

2005
[45]

Synthetic Biology Open Language (SBOL) version 2.2

Cox, RS, Madsen, C, McLaughlin, JA, Nguyen, T, Roehner, N, Bartley, B, Beal, J, Bissell, M, Choi, K, Clancy, K, et al. Synthetic Biology Open Language (SBOL) version 2.2. 0. Journal of Integrative Bioinformatics 15 (2018)

2018
[46]

Recon 2.2: from reconstruction to model of human metabolism

Swainston, N, Smallbone, K, Hefzi, H, Dobson, PD, Brewer, J, Hanscho, M, Zielinski, DC, Ang, KS, Gardiner, NJ, Gutierrez, JM, et al. Recon 2.2: from reconstruction to model of human metabolism. Metabolomics 12, 109 (2016)

2016
[47]

iML1515, a knowledgebase that computes Escherichia coli traits

Monk, JM, Lloyd, CJ, Brunk, E, Mih, N, Sastry, A, King, Z, Takeuchi, R, Nomura, W, Zhang, Z, Mori, H, et al. iML1515, a knowledgebase that computes Escherichia coli traits. Nature Biotechnology 35, 904 (2017)

2017
[48]

A whole-cell computational model predicts phenotype from genotype

Karr, JR, Sanghvi, JC, Macklin, DN, Gutschow, MV, Jacobs, JM, Bolival Jr, B, Assad-Garcia, N, Glass, JI & Covert, MW. A whole-cell computational model predicts phenotype from genotype. Cell 150, 389–401 (2012)

2012
[49]

IMG: the integrated microbial genomes database and comparative analysis system

Markowitz, VM, Chen, I-MA, Palaniappan, K, Chu, K, Szeto, E, Grechkin, Y, Ratner, A, Jacob, B, Huang, J, Williams, P, et al. IMG: the integrated microbial genomes database and comparative analysis system. Nucleic Acids Research 40, D115–D122 (2011). 15

2011
[50]

The SEED and the Rapid Annotation of microbial genomes using Subsystems Technology (RAST)

Overbeek, R, Olson, R, Pusch, GD, Olsen, GJ, Davis, JJ, Disz, T, Edwards, RA, Gerdes, S, Parrello, B, Shukla, M, et al. The SEED and the Rapid Annotation of microbial genomes using Subsystems Technology (RAST). Nucleic Acids Research 42, D206–D214 (2013)

2013
[51]

A knowledge-based approach to design for manu- facturability

Venkatachalam, A, Mellichamp, JM & Miller, DM. A knowledge-based approach to design for manu- facturability. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 4, 355–366 (1993)

1993
[52]

Abrantes, R, Basto, M, Varaj˜ ao, J, Magalh˜ aes, L, Ribeiro, P & Freitas, LC.Rule ontology for automatic design veriﬁcation application to PCB manufacturing and assembly in IECON 2017-43rd Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society (2017), 3403–3409

2017
[53]

Streamlining the design-to-build transition with build-optimization software tools

Oberortner, E, Cheng, J-F, Hillson, NJ & Deutsch, S. Streamlining the design-to-build transition with build-optimization software tools. ACS Synthetic Biology 6, 485–496 (2016)

2016
[54]

Golden gate shuﬄing: a one-pot DNA shuﬄing method based on type IIs restriction enzymes

Engler, C, Gruetzner, R, Kandzia, R & Marillonnet, S. Golden gate shuﬄing: a one-pot DNA shuﬄing method based on type IIs restriction enzymes. PloS One 4, e5553 (2009)

2009
[55]

A modular cloning system for stan- dardized assembly of multigene constructs

Weber, E, Engler, C, Gruetzner, R, Werner, S & Marillonnet, S. A modular cloning system for stan- dardized assembly of multigene constructs. PloS One 6, e16765 (2011)

2011
[56]

Enzymatic assembly of DNA molecules up to several hundred kilobases

Gibson, DG, Young, L, Chuang, R-Y, Venter, JC, Hutchison III, CA & Smith, HO. Enzymatic assembly of DNA molecules up to several hundred kilobases. Nature Methods 6, 343 (2009)

2009
[57]

One-step assembly in yeast of 25 overlapping DNA fragments to form a complete synthetic Mycoplasma genitalium genome

Gibson, DG, Benders, GA, Axelrod, KC, Zaveri, J, Algire, MA, Moodie, M, Montague, MG, Venter, JC, Smith, HO & Hutchison, CA. One-step assembly in yeast of 25 overlapping DNA fragments to form a complete synthetic Mycoplasma genitalium genome. Proceedings of the National Academ...

2008
[58]

BpForms: a toolkit for concretely describing modiﬁed DNA, RNA and proteins

Lang, PF, Chebaro, Y & Karr, JR. BpForms: a toolkit for concretely describing modiﬁed DNA, RNA and proteins. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.10042 (2019)

2019 arXiv
[59]

Design, implementation and practice of JBEI-ICE: an open source biological part registry platform and tools

Ham, TS, Dmytriv, Z, Plahar, H, Chen, J, Hillson, NJ & Keasling, JD. Design, implementation and practice of JBEI-ICE: an open source biological part registry platform and tools. Nucleic Acids Research 40, e141–e141 (2012)

2012
[60]

SynBioHub: a standards-enabled design repository for synthetic biology

McLaughlin, JA, Myers, CJ, Zundel, Z, Mısırlı, G, Zhang, M, Oﬁteru, ID, Goi-Moreno, A & Wipat, A. SynBioHub: a standards-enabled design repository for synthetic biology. ACS Synthetic Biology 7, 682–688 (2018)

2018
[61]

A standard variation ﬁle format for human genome sequences

Reese, MG, Moore, B, Batchelor, C, Salas, F, Cunningham, F, Marth, GT, Stein, L, Flicek, P, Yandell, M & Eilbeck, K. A standard variation ﬁle format for human genome sequences. Genome Biology 11, R88 (2010)

2010
[62]

Standardization, calibration, and control in ﬂow cytometry

Wang, L & Hoﬀman, RA. Standardization, calibration, and control in ﬂow cytometry. Current Proto- cols in Cytometry 79, 1–3 (2017)

2017
[63]

Quantiﬁcation of bacterial ﬂuorescence using independent calibrants

Beal, J, Haddock-Angelli, T, Baldwin, G, Gershater, M, Dwijayanti, A, Storch, M, de Mora, K, Lizarazo, M, Rettberg, R, et al. Quantiﬁcation of bacterial ﬂuorescence using independent calibrants. PloS One 13, e0199432 (2018)

2018
[64]

General calibration of microbial growth in microplate readers

Stevenson, K, McVey, AF, Clark, IB, Swain, PS & Pilizota, T. General calibration of microbial growth in microplate readers. Scientiﬁc Reports 6, 38828 (2016)

2016
[65]

External RNA controls consortium beta version update

Lee, H, Pine, PS, McDaniel, J, Salit, M & Oliver, B. External RNA controls consortium beta version update. Journal of Genomics 4, 19 (2016)

2016
[66]

RightField: embedding ontology annotation in spreadsheets

Wolstencroft, K, Owen, S, Horridge, M, Krebs, O, Mueller, W, Snoep, JL, du Preez, F & Goble, C. RightField: embedding ontology annotation in spreadsheets. Bioinformatics 27, 2021–2022 (2011)

2011
[67]

OpenWorm: overview and recent advances in integrative biological simulation of Caenorhabditis elegans

Sarma, GP, Lee, CW, Portegys, T, Ghayoomie, V, Jacobs, T, Alicea, B, Cantarelli, M, Currie, M, Gerkin, RC, Gingell, S, et al. OpenWorm: overview and recent advances in integrative biological simulation of Caenorhabditis elegans. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society ...

2018
[68]

The OBO Foundry: coordinated evolution of ontologies to support biomedical data integration

Smith, B, Ashburner, M, Rosse, C, Bard, J, Bug, W, Ceusters, W, Goldberg, LJ, Eilbeck, K, Ireland, A, Mungall, CJ, et al. The OBO Foundry: coordinated evolution of ontologies to support biomedical data integration. Nature Biotechnology 25, 1251 (2007). 16

2007
[69]

Modeling sample variables with an Experimental Factor Ontology

Malone, J, Holloway, E, Adamusiak, T, Kapushesky, M, Zheng, J, Kolesnikov, N, Zhukova, A, Brazma, A & Parkinson, H. Modeling sample variables with an Experimental Factor Ontology. Bioinformatics 26, 1112–1118 (2010)

2010
[70]

Emerging whole-cell modeling principles and methods

Goldberg, AP, Szigeti, B, Chew, YH, Sekar, JA, Roth, YD & Karr, JR. Emerging whole-cell modeling principles and methods. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 51, 97–102 (2018)

2018
[71]

A blueprint for human whole-cell modeling

Szigeti, B, Roth, YD, Sekar, JA, Goldberg, AP, Pochiraju, SC & Karr, JR. A blueprint for human whole-cell modeling. Current Opinion in Systems Biology 7, 8–15 (2018)

2018
[72]

Standard virtual biological parts: a repository of modular modeling components for synthetic biology

Cooling, MT, Rouilly, V, Misirli, G, Lawson, J, Yu, T, Hallinan, J & Wipat, A. Standard virtual biological parts: a repository of modular modeling components for synthetic biology. Bioinformatics 26, 925–931 (2010)

2010
[73]

Model selection in systems and synthetic biology

Kirk, P, Thorne, T & Stumpf, MP. Model selection in systems and synthetic biology. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 24, 767–774 (2013)

2013
[74]

BioModels: expanding horizons to include more modelling ap- proaches and formats

Glont, M, Nguyen, TVN, Graesslin, M, H¨ alke, R, Ali, R, Schramm, J, Wimalaratne, SM, Kothamachu, VB, Rodriguez, N, Swat, MJ, et al. BioModels: expanding horizons to include more modelling ap- proaches and formats. Nucleic Acids Research 46, D1248–D1253 (2017)

2017
[75]

Model exchange with the NeuroML model database

Crook, SM & Dietrich, S. Model exchange with the NeuroML model database. BMC Neuroscience 15, P171 (2014)

2014
[76]

Open Source Brain: A Collaborative Resource for Visualizing, Analyzing, Simulating, and Developing Standardized Models of Neurons and Circuits

Gleeson, P, Cantarelli, M, Marin, B, Quintana, A, Earnshaw, M, Sadeh, S, Piasini, E, Birgiolas, J, Cannon, RC, Cayco-Gajic, NA, et al. Open Source Brain: A Collaborative Resource for Visualizing, Analyzing, Simulating, and Developing Standardized Models of Neurons and Circuits...

2019
[77]

The Physiome Model Repository 2

Yu, T, Lloyd, CM, Nickerson, DP, Cooling, MT, Miller, AK, Garny, A, Terkildsen, JR, Lawson, J, Britten, RD, Hunter, PJ, et al. The Physiome Model Repository 2. Bioinformatics 27, 743–744 (2011)

2011
[78]

Metabolic ﬂux analysis and metabolic engineering of microorganisms

Kim, HU, Kim, TY & Lee, SY. Metabolic ﬂux analysis and metabolic engineering of microorganisms. Molecular BioSystems 4, 113–120 (2008)

2008
[79]

Several design heuristics are also already commonly used

can help bioengineers design signal sequences to traﬃc proteins to speciﬁc compartments. Several design heuristics are also already commonly used. For example, bioengineers often optimize the GC content of parts to minimize their metabolic load on their host [80]. To close the...

1995
[80]

PSORTb 3.0: improved protein subcellular localization prediction with reﬁned localization subcategories and predictive capabilities for all prokaryotes

Yu, NY, Wagner, JR, Laird, MR, Melli, G, Rey, S, Lo, R, Dao, P, Sahinalp, SC, Ester, M, Foster, LJ, et al. PSORTb 3.0: improved protein subcellular localization prediction with reﬁned localization subcategories and predictive capabilities for all prokaryotes. Bioinformatics 26...

2010
[81]

Gene Designer: a synthetic biology tool for constructing artiﬁcial DNA segments

Villalobos, A, Ness, JE, Gustafsson, C, Minshull, J & Govindarajan, S. Gene Designer: a synthetic biology tool for constructing artiﬁcial DNA segments. BMC Bioinformatics 7, 285 (2006)

2006
[82]

The CellML 1.1 speciﬁcation

Cuellar, A, Hedley, W, Nelson, M, Lloyd, C, Halstead, M, Bullivant, D, Nickerson, D, Hunter, P & Nielsen, P. The CellML 1.1 speciﬁcation. Journal of Integrative Bioinformatics 12, 4–85 (2015)

2015
[83]

Development of NeuroML version 2.0: greater exten- sibility, support for abstract neuronal models and interaction with systems biology languages

Gleeson, P, Crook, S, Silver, A & Cannon, R. Development of NeuroML version 2.0: greater exten- sibility, support for abstract neuronal models and interaction with systems biology languages. BMC Neuroscience 12, P29 (2011)

2011
[84]

The Systems Biology Markup Language (SBML): a medium for representation and exchange of biochemical network models

Hucka, M, Finney, A, Sauro, HM, Bolouri, H, Doyle, JC, Kitano, H, Arkin, AP, Bornstein, BJ, Bray, D, Cornish-Bowden, A, et al. The Systems Biology Markup Language (SBML): a medium for representation and exchange of biochemical network models. Bioinformatics 19, 524–531 (2003)

2003
[85]

DockerHub <https://hub.docker.com> (2019)

Docker Inc. DockerHub <https://hub.docker.com> (2019)

2019
[86]

A standard-enabled workﬂow for synthetic biology

Myers, CJ, Beal, J, Gorochowski, TE, Kuwahara, H, Madsen, C, McLaughlin, JA, Mısırlı, G, Nguyen, T, Oberortner, E, Samineni, M, et al. A standard-enabled workﬂow for synthetic biology. Biochemical Society Transactions 45, 793–803 (2017)

2017
[87]

An implemen- tation-focused bio/algorithmic workﬂow for synthetic biology

Go˜ ni Moreno, A, Carcajona, M, Kim, J, Mart´ ınez-Garc´ ıa, E, Amos, M & de Lorenzo, V. An implemen- tation-focused bio/algorithmic workﬂow for synthetic biology. ACS Synthetic Biology 5, 1127–1135 (2016)

2016
[88]

Harnessing QbD, programming languages, and automation for reproducible biology

Sadowski, MI, Grant, C & Fell, TS. Harnessing QbD, programming languages, and automation for reproducible biology. Trends in Biotechnology 34, 214–227 (2016)

2016
[89]

Trends in laboratory information management system

Prasad, PJ & Bodhe, G. Trends in laboratory information management system. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 118, 187–192 (2012). 17

2012
[90]

Achieving reproducibility and closed-loop automation in biological experimenta- tion with an IoT-enabled Lab of the future

Miles, B & Lee, PL. Achieving reproducibility and closed-loop automation in biological experimenta- tion with an IoT-enabled Lab of the future. SLAS Technology 23, 432–439 (2018)

2018
[91]

Aquarium: The laboratory operating system version 2.6.0

Keller, B, Vrana, J, Miller, A, Newman, G & Klavins, E. Aquarium: The laboratory operating system version 2.6.0. doi:10.5281/zenodo.2583232 (2019)

2019 doi
[92]

Antha <http://www.antha-lang.org> (2019)

Synthace. Antha <http://www.antha-lang.org> (2019)

2019
[93]

Synthetic bistability and diﬀerentiation in yeast

Yang, Y, Nemhauser, JL & Klavins, E. Synthetic bistability and diﬀerentiation in yeast. ACS Synthetic Biology (2019)

2019
[94]

The Workﬂow Description Language and Cromwell <https://software.broadin- stitute.org/wdl> (2019)

Broad Institute. The Workﬂow Description Language and Cromwell <https://software.broadin- stitute.org/wdl> (2019)

2019
[95]

Galaxy: a comprehensive approach for supporting accessible, reproducible, and transparent computational research in the life sciences

Goecks, J, Nekrutenko, A & Taylor, J. Galaxy: a comprehensive approach for supporting accessible, reproducible, and transparent computational research in the life sciences. Genome Biology 11, R86 (2010)

2010
[96]

Nextﬂow enables reproducible computational workﬂows

Di Tommaso, P, Chatzou, M, Floden, EW, Barja, PP, Palumbo, E & Notredame, C. Nextﬂow enables reproducible computational workﬂows. Nature Biotechnology 35, 316 (2017)

2017
[97]

Toil enables reproducible, open source, big biomedical data analyses

Vivian, J, Rao, AA, Nothaft, FA, Ketchum, C, Armstrong, J, Novak, A, Pfeil, J, Narkizian, J, Deran, AD, Musselman-Brown, A, et al. Toil enables reproducible, open source, big biomedical data analyses. Nature Biotechnology 35, 314 (2017)

2017
[98]

Common Workﬂow Language, v1.0 2016

Amstutz, P, Crusoe, MR, Tijani, N, Chapman, B, Chilton, J, Heuer, M, Kartashov, A, Leehr, D, Mnager, H, Nedeljkovich, M & et al. Common Workﬂow Language, v1.0 2016. doi: 10 . 6084 / m9 . figshare.3115156.v2 . <https://figshare.com/articles/Common_Workflow_Language_draft_ 3/3115156/2>

2016
[99]

The Dockstore: enabling modular, community-focused sharing of Docker-based genomics tools and workﬂows

O’Connor, BD, Yuen, D, Chung, V, Duncan, AG, Liu, XK, Patricia, J, Paten, B, Stein, L & Ferretti, V. The Dockstore: enabling modular, community-focused sharing of Docker-based genomics tools and workﬂows. F1000Research 6 (2017)

2017
[100]

myExperiment: a repository and social network for the sharing of bioinformatics workﬂows

Goble, CA, Bhagat, J, Aleksejevs, S, Cruickshank, D, Michaelides, D, Newman, D, Borkum, M, Bech- hofer, S, Roos, M, Li, P, et al. myExperiment: a repository and social network for the sharing of bioinformatics workﬂows. Nucleic Acids Research 38, W677–W682 (2010)

2010
[101]

COMBINE archive and OMEX format: one ﬁle to share all infor- mation to reproduce a modeling project

Bergmann, FT, Adams, R, Moodie, S, Cooper, J, Glont, M, Golebiewski, M, Hucka, M, Laibe, C, Miller, AK, Nickerson, DP, et al. COMBINE archive and OMEX format: one ﬁle to share all infor- mation to reproduce a modeling project. BMC Bioinformatics 15, 369 (2014)

2014
[102]

Container-based operating system virtualization: a scalable, high-performance alternative to hypervisors in ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review 41 (2007), 275–287

Soltesz, S, P¨ otzl, H, Fiuczynski, ME, Bavier, A & Peterson, L. Container-based operating system virtualization: a scalable, high-performance alternative to hypervisors in ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review 41 (2007), 275–287

2007
[103]

GitHub Guides: Mastering issues <https://guides.github.com/features/issues/> (2019)

GitHub, Inc. GitHub Guides: Mastering issues <https://guides.github.com/features/issues/> (2019)

2019
[104]

The W3C PROV family of speciﬁcations for modelling prove- nance metadata in Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Extending Database Technology (2013), 773–776

Missier, P, Belhajjame, K & Cheney, J. The W3C PROV family of speciﬁcations for modelling prove- nance metadata in Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Extending Database Technology (2013), 773–776

2013
[105]

FAIRDOMHub: a repository and collaboration environment for sharing systems biology research

Wolstencroft, K, Krebs, O, Snoep, JL, Stanford, NJ, Bacall, F, Golebiewski, M, Kuzyakiv, R, Nguyen, Q, Owen, S, Soiland-Reyes, S, et al. FAIRDOMHub: a repository and collaboration environment for sharing systems biology research. Nucleic Acids Research 45, D404–D407 (2016)

2016
[106]

The experiment data depot: a web-based software tool for biological experimental data storage, sharing, and visualization

Morrell, WC, Birkel, GW, Forrer, M, Lopez, T, Backman, TW, Dussault, M, Petzold, CJ, Baidoo, EE, Costello, Z, Ando, D, et al. The experiment data depot: a web-based software tool for biological experimental data storage, sharing, and visualization. ACS Synthetic Biology 6, 224...

2017
[107]

Science commons: Material transfer agreement project

Nguyen, T. Science commons: Material transfer agreement project. Innovations: Technology, Gover- nance, Globalization 2, 137–143 (2007)

2007
[108]

Opening options for material transfer

Kahl, L, Molloy, J, Patron, N, Matthewman, C, Haseloﬀ, J, Grewal, D, Johnson, R & Endy, D. Opening options for material transfer. Nature Biotechnology 36, 923 (2018). 18

2018
[109]

Chandersekaran, C, Simpson, W & Trice, A. Cross-domain solutions in an era of information sharing in The 1st international multi-conference on engineering and technological innovation: IMET2008, Orlando, FL 1 (2008), 313–318

2008
[110]

Cross-domain data sharing in distributed electronic health record systems

Sun, J & Fang, Y. Cross-domain data sharing in distributed electronic health record systems. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 21, 754–764 (2009). 19

2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

The Genome Project-Write

Boeke, JD, Church, G, Hessel, A, Kelley, NJ, Arkin, A, Cai, Y, Carlson, R, Chakravarti, A, Cornish, VW, Holt, L, et al. The Genome Project-Write. Science 353, 126–127 (2016)

2016

[2] [2]

Biology Is Technology : The Promise, Peril, and New Business of Engineering Life (Harvard University Press, 2011)

Carlson, RH. Biology Is Technology : The Promise, Peril, and New Business of Engineering Life (Harvard University Press, 2011)

2011

[3] [3]

Synthetic DNA synthesis and assembly: putting the synthetic in syn- thetic biology

Hughes, RA & Ellington, AD. Synthetic DNA synthesis and assembly: putting the synthetic in syn- thetic biology. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology 9, a023812 (2017)

2017

[4] [4]

Beyond editing to writing large genomes

Chari, R & Church, GM. Beyond editing to writing large genomes. Nature Reviews Genetics 18, 749 (2017)

2017

[5] [5]

Total synthesis of a gene

Khorana, HG. Total synthesis of a gene. Science 203, 614–625 (1979)

1979

[6] [6]

A totally synthetic plasmid for general cloning, gene expression and mutagenesis in Escherichia coli

Mandecki, W, Hayden, MA, Shallcross, MA & Stotland, E. A totally synthetic plasmid for general cloning, gene expression and mutagenesis in Escherichia coli. Gene 94, 103–107 (1990)

1990

[7] [7]

Single-step assembly of a gene and entire plasmid from large numbers of oligodeoxyribonucleotides

Stemmer, WP, Crameri, A, Ha, KD, Brennan, TM & Heyneker, HL. Single-step assembly of a gene and entire plasmid from large numbers of oligodeoxyribonucleotides. Gene 164, 49–53 (1995)

1995

[8] [8]

Chemical synthesis of poliovirus cDNA: generation of infectious virus in the absence of natural template

Cello, J, Paul, AV & Wimmer, E. Chemical synthesis of poliovirus cDNA: generation of infectious virus in the absence of natural template. Science 297, 1016–1018 (2002)

2002