Robustness and reproducibility of simple and complex synthetic logic circuit designs using a DBTL loop
Synthetic Biology, ISSN: 2397-7000, Vol: 8, Issue: 1, Page: ysad005
2023
- 6Citations
- 21Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations6
- Citation Indexes6
- CrossRef1
- Captures21
- Readers21
- 21
Article Description
Computational tools addressing various components of design–build–test–learn (DBTL) loops for the construction of synthetic genetic networks exist but do not generally cover the entire DBTL loop. This manuscript introduces an end-to-end sequence of tools that together form a DBTL loop called Design Assemble Round Trip (DART). DART provides rational selection and refinement of genetic parts to construct and test a circuit. Computational support for experimental process, metadata management, standardized data collection and reproducible data analysis is provided via the previously published Round Trip (RT) test–learn loop. The primary focus of this work is on the Design Assemble (DA) part of the tool chain, which improves on previous techniques by screening up to thousands of network topologies for robust performance using a novel robustness score derived from dynamical behavior based on circuit topology only. In addition, novel experimental support software is introduced for the assembly of genetic circuits. A complete design-through-analysis sequence is presented using several OR and NOR circuit designs, with and without structural redundancy, that are implemented in budding yeast. The execution of DART tested the predictions of the design tools, specifically with regard to robust and reproducible performance under different experimental conditions. The data analysis depended on a novel application of machine learning techniques to segment bimodal flow cytometry distributions. Evidence is presented that, in some cases, a more complex build may impart more robustness and reproducibility across experimental conditions.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85159757115&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/synbio/ysad005; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37073283; https://academic.oup.com/synbio/article/doi/10.1093/synbio/ysad005/7091610; https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/synbio/ysad005; https://academic.oup.com/synbio/article/8/1/ysad005/7091610
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know