↓ Skip to main content

Re-using biological devices: a model-aided analysis of interconnected transcriptional cascades designed from the bottom-up

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biological Engineering, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Re-using biological devices: a model-aided analysis of interconnected transcriptional cascades designed from the bottom-up
Published in
Journal of Biological Engineering, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13036-017-0090-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lorenzo Pasotti, Massimo Bellato, Michela Casanova, Susanna Zucca, Maria Gabriella Cusella De Angelis, Paolo Magni

Abstract

The study of simplified, ad-hoc constructed model systems can help to elucidate if quantitatively characterized biological parts can be effectively re-used in composite circuits to yield predictable functions. Synthetic systems designed from the bottom-up can enable the building of complex interconnected devices via rational approach, supported by mathematical modelling. However, such process is affected by different, usually non-modelled, unpredictability sources, like cell burden. Here, we analyzed a set of synthetic transcriptional cascades in Escherichia coli. We aimed to test the predictive power of a simple Hill function activation/repression model (no-burden model, NBM) and of a recently proposed model, including Hill functions and the modulation of proteins expression by cell load (burden model, BM). To test the bottom-up approach, the circuit collection was divided into training and test sets, used to learn individual component functions and test the predicted output of interconnected circuits, respectively. Among the constructed configurations, two test set circuits showed unexpected logic behaviour. Both NBM and BM were able to predict the quantitative output of interconnected devices with expected behaviour, but only the BM was also able to predict the output of one circuit with unexpected behaviour. Moreover, considering training and test set data together, the BM captures circuits output with higher accuracy than the NBM, which is unable to capture the experimental output exhibited by some of the circuits even qualitatively. Finally, resource usage parameters, estimated via BM, guided the successful construction of new corrected variants of the two circuits showing unexpected behaviour. Superior descriptive and predictive capabilities were achieved considering resource limitation modelling, but further efforts are needed to improve the accuracy of models for biological engineering.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 37%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 17%
Student > Master 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 10%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 2 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 50%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 13%
Engineering 3 10%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 2 7%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 December 2017.
All research outputs
#15,318,700
of 24,289,456 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biological Engineering
#184
of 288 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#246,355
of 447,508 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biological Engineering
#7
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,289,456 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 288 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 447,508 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.