Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 27 references

A decade of SBOL Visual: growing adoption of a diagram standard for engineering biology

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Standard-compliant genetic diagrams nearly double in a decade

desk verdict Useful first adoption dataset for SBOL Visual, but the headline trend is inflated by retroactive v3.0 scoring and a single endorsing journal. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04601 v1 pith:KTOGLGKI submitted 2025-07-07 q-bio.OT

Lukas Buecherl , Felipe X. Buson , Georgie Hau S{o}rensen , Carolus Vitalis , Erik Kubaczka , Gonzalo Vidal , Bryan Bartley , Yan-Kay Ho
show 5 more authors
Göksel M{i}s{i}rl{i} Thomas E. Gorochowski Jacob Beal Chris J. Myers Prashant Vaidyanathan
This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.OT
keywords SBOLVisualsyntheticbiologydiagramstandardgeneticdesignvisualizationadoptioncompliancemeasurementACS
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

This paper is a retrospective audit of SBOL Visual, a standardized glyph language for drawing genetic circuits and designs, over its first decade. The authors manually scored every genetic-design figure published in ACS Synthetic Biology between 2012 and 2023 against the SBOL Visual Version 3.0 specification, tracking both mandatory compliance and adherence to recommended best practices. They report that the share of compliant diagrams roughly doubled across the period, exceeding 70% of eligible figures since 2020, while best-practice adherence lagged about 40% behind. The paper argues that a community-driven standard can measurably shift how a field draws its biology, and identifies targeted gaps—training, tool support, and missing glyphs for new contexts—that remain before the standard becomes universal.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the SBOL Visual Version 3.0 specification itself, which defines a set of glyphs and two tiers of design rules: mandatory rules (MUST and MUST NOT) that determine compliance, and recommended rules (SHOULD and SHOULD NOT) that define best practices. The empirical mechanism is a manual figure-scoring pipeline: figures from each volume of ACS Synthetic Biology are assigned to reviewers, judged for whether SBOL Visual is relevant, then checked rule by rule, with ambiguous cases resolved by team consensus. A small number of agreed exceptions (e.g., arrow glyphs for coding sequences as best practice; double-slash line breaks as compliant) were applied to reflect recurring usage, and the paper provides the full rule sets in Figures 3 and 4. The analysis is carried by the combination of the explicit ruleset, the curated dataset, and the consensus procedure.

What would settle it

Take the same corpus of figures and have a panel of reviewers who are not involved in SBOL Visual maintainership, and who are blind to the paper's hypotheses, re-score every figure against the Version 3.0 rules; then compare the year-by-year compliance percentages with the paper's Figure 5. If the independent panel's numbers differ by more than a few points, or if the roughly doubling trend and the >70% plateau since 2020 do not reproduce, the central adoption claim would not survive. A second check would be to score an equivalent set of genetic-design figures from a synthetic biology journal that has not endorsed the standard (or a general bioengineering outlet) over the same years; if compliance there is substantially lower or flat, the reported adoption is an artefact of journal selection.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that SBOL Visual has moved from a niche proposal to the de facto visual language for genetic design figures in synthetic biology: between 2012 and 2023 the percentage of SBOL Visual-compliant genetic diagrams in ACS Synthetic Biology approximately doubled, with more than 70% of eligible figures compliant since 2020. Compliance was defined by the mandatory 'MUST'/'MUST NOT' rules of the Version 3.0 specification; a separate, stricter bar of best practices ('SHOULD'/'SHOULD NOT') was met by fewer figures, roughly 40% less than compliance. The analysis also documents recurring violations—generic arrows overused for many feature types, ovals for ribosome binding sites, stop-signs for terminators, and interactions shown by proximity rather than arrows—and notes that specialized subfields such as CRISPR engineering informally invent new glyphs that future standard versions might absorb. The paper attributes the upward trend to community-building activities, journal endorsement, and software tools, while cautioning that simple exposure to the standard may account for part of the increase.

Load-bearing premise

The whole adoption estimate depends on the assumption that figures published in ACS Synthetic Biology, a journal that has officially endorsed SBOL Visual, represent the broader synthetic biology community, and that retroactively applying the Version 3.0 rules to a decade of older figures (some published before that version existed) is a fair measure of compliance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the trend holds, SBOL Visual is effectively the default drawing standard in the field, which makes journal figure requirements and software defaults natural next levers for full adoption.
  • The persistent gap between compliance and best practices suggests that many authors are producing figures that meet the letter of the standard but not its intent; improved tutorials and tools that generate best-practice diagrams should close much of that gap.
  • The observed informally invented glyphs (e.g., black diamond for CRISPR spacers, double slash for omitted sequence) provide a concrete roadmap for future versions of the standard to absorb community consensus.
  • The paper's proposed expansion to RNA and protein molecule design, base-level DNA detail, and workflow abstractions would extend the standard from nucleic-acid constructs to a fuller diagram language for engineered biology.
  • Because ACS Synthetic Biology has officially endorsed SBOL Visual since 2016, the measured adoption may be a leading indicator; monitoring synthetic biology journals without such endorsements would test how far the standard has spread beyond its home journal.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The retroactive application of the Version 3.0 ruleset to figures published between 2012 and 2021 (before that version existed) may misclassify older diagrams that were reasonable under the contemporary spec; a version-aware scoring would be a useful robustness check.
  • The manual consensus scoring, with reviewers including the standard's own maintainers, risks a systematic leniency or recall bias; an independent blind re-scoring of a random figure sample would quantify this.
  • The measured doubling in compliance may partly be a reflection of a single journal's editorial culture and its authors copying each other's figure styles, rather than deliberate adoption of the standard; comparing against a non-endorsing journal would separate mimicry from intentional use.
  • Extending the same scoring protocol to preprint servers and tool-generated figures (e.g., from DNAplotlib or SBOL Canvas) could indicate whether adoption is driven by human learning or by tool defaults, which would redirect training efforts.
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.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. This perspective reviews the first ten years of the SBOL Visual standard and reports a quantitative adoption analysis based on figures published in ACS Synthetic Biology between 2012 and 2023. The authors manually classified each relevant genetic-design figure as compliant with SBOL Visual Version 3.0 or not, and further classified compliant figures as following best practices, with a small set of post hoc exceptions agreed by the reviewing team. The central quantitative findings are that the percentage of SBOL Visual-compliant genetic-design figures approximately doubled over the decade, exceeding 70% since 2020, while full best-practice adherence lags roughly 40% below compliance. The paper also discusses trends in common non-compliance, tools, and future directions.

Significance. If the quantitative trend is correct, the paper provides one of the first longitudinal measurements of diagram-standard adoption in synthetic biology and will be a useful reference for the community and for journal policies. The strengths of the paper are the full public release of per-figure scoring data, the clear separation of mandatory compliance from recommended best practices, and the candid discussion of the difficulty of attributing adoption to awareness of the standard. The main limitations are that the analysis covers only one journal that has officially endorsed the standard, that the scoring rubric was modified after data inspection, and that the version of the standard applied to older figures was not the version in force at publication. These limitations do not make the result implausible, but they mean the precise quantitative claims should be presented with more caution and validated with additional analyses.

major comments (5)
  1. [Increasing Adoption over Time (Methods)] The methods state that every figure was manually assessed against the SBOL Visual Version 3.0 specification, and Figure 3 shows mandatory rules such as 5.3.2 and 5.4.x that were introduced or materially changed after the earlier versions. Because Version 3.0 was published in 2021 and removed the dashed subsystem-mapping line noted in the text, a figure compliant under the version in force at publication can be scored non-compliant under v3.0, which suppresses early-year compliance and inflates the apparent upward slope. Please re-score at least a stratified sample of pre-2021 figures against the version in force at the time, or report a sensitivity analysis demonstrating that the headline 'approximately doubling' trend is robust to the choice of specification version.
  2. [Increasing Adoption over Time (Exceptions to the rubric)] The rubric was modified after the team inspected the analyzed figures: arrow glyphs for CDS, a straight line for restriction sites, and a double slash for omitted material were admitted as exceptions. Because these exceptions were introduced after seeing the data and are folded into the reported counts without a sensitivity analysis, the compliance and best-practice percentages are not fully pre-specified. Please report the counts both with and without each exception, or otherwise show that the main trend in Figure 5 is robust to these post hoc rule changes.
  3. [Increasing Adoption over Time (Scope and generalizability)] The quantitative analysis is restricted to ACS Synthetic Biology, a journal that has officially endorsed SBOL Visual, yet the abstract and title generalize to 'scientific publications' and the synthetic biology community. A journal with an endorsement policy is likely to show higher adoption than the field as a whole, so the measured trend may not represent community-wide practice. Please either narrow the scope of the claims or add comparative data from journals without an endorsement; at minimum, add a limitation statement making this boundary explicit.
  4. [Increasing Adoption over Time (Scoring reliability)] Each reviewer was assigned figures from a separate calendar year, so year-to-year differences in compliance are confounded with differences among raters. No inter-rater reliability statistic (for example, Cohen's kappa or a double-scored subset) is reported, and the consensus discussions are described only qualitatively. Please report a reliability measure on a subset of figures scored by multiple reviewers, and examine whether per-rater leniency is correlated with the observed upward trend.
  5. [Figure 5 (Statistical support for the trend)] The claim that compliance 'approximately doubled' rests on visual inspection and linear best fits with no reported coefficients, confidence intervals, or goodness-of-fit statistics. With twelve annual percentages and no regression output, the reader cannot assess whether the increase is statistically distinguishable from noise. Please provide the fitted model parameters and ideally confidence intervals for the slope; if the trend is not robust to these choices, soften the quantitative claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Author list] The author list contains malformed encodings for 'Yan-Kay Ho' and 'Goksel Misirli'; these should be cleaned before final submission.
  2. [Figure 5 caption / y-axis label] The y-axis label 'Figures using SBOL Visual (%)' does not match the actual denominator, which is SBOL-Visual-relevant genetic diagrams; please clarify the label, for example as 'SBOL Visual-compliant figures among relevant genetic diagrams (%).'
  3. [Prose and caption wording] In the section on non-compliance, 'This occured' should be 'This occurred'; in the Figure 5 caption, 'separating those that adherence to mandatory rules' should be 'separating those that adhere to mandatory rules'.
  4. [References] References 5 and 7 appear to be the same item; one should be removed or the duplicate citation should be consolidated.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Post hoc compliance exceptions make the adoption metric partly self-fulfilling, but core compliance counts remain direct measurements against a published standard.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 'Increasing Adoption over Time', methods paragraph on compliance scoring and post hoc rubric exceptions.]
    "Based on these discussions, a small number of exceptions to the SBOL Visual specification were agreed upon, as certain recurring cases were commonly seen in the analyzed publications. These special cases included: ... (3) using a double slash line break for omitted material is compliant but not best practices."

    The rubric used to score compliance is fitted to the same corpus it then measures. The paper first identifies recurring figure conventions in the analyzed publications, agrees to treat them as exceptions to the SBOL Visual specification, and then counts figures using those conventions (e.g., double-slash for omitted sequence) as compliant. For these excepted cases, the compliance label is not determined by an independent external benchmark but by the reviewers' post hoc decision, so the reported trend and the '>70% compliant since 2020' statement are partly constructed by the measurement choices. This is partial circularity: most figures are still compared with the published v3.0 rules, but the exceptions make the headline statistic partially self-fulfilling.

full rationale

The paper's core activity is direct measurement, not derivation: figures from ACS Synthetic Biology are scored against the published SBOL Visual v3.0 specification, and the compliance counts are reported as percentages per year. The standard is an externally available artifact, and the figure corpus was published independently of this study, so the central dataset is not manufactured by the authors. However, the measurement is not fully independent: the review team includes maintainers of the standard, and the scoring rubric was adjusted after inspecting the analyzed publications, with a small number of 'exceptions' declared compliant. That step is a genuine fitting of the measuring instrument to the data, which makes part of the observed adoption trend self-referential. The additional concern that all years are scored against v3.0, published in 2021, is a real validity threat to interpreting the trend as 'adoption' rather than as a comparison against a newer standard, but it is not a circular reduction because v3.0 is a fixed, published specification rather than a parameter fitted to these figures. Overall, the central claim still has independent content, and the paper is transparent about its limitations, so the circularity is partial rather than structural.

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

No numeric parameters are fitted in this study. The central claims rest on four assumptions: the retrospective applicability of Version 3.0 rules, the accuracy of manual classification, the neutrality of post hoc exceptions, and the representativeness of a single endorsing journal. The first, third, and fourth are load-bearing for the reported adoption percentages.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The SBOL Visual Version 3.0 specification is the correct benchmark for judging figures published from 2012 to 2023, including years before the specification existed.
    All figures were scored against Version 3.0 rules, which may misclassify older figures that followed earlier versions of the standard.
  • domain assumption Manual visual inspection by a team of reviewers accurately and consistently classifies figures as compliant or not.
    No inter-rater reliability statistic is reported; the paper only describes consensus discussions for ambiguous cases.
  • ad hoc to paper The post hoc exceptions to the specification do not bias the compliance measurement.
    Reviewers agreed on exceptions, such as accepting arrow glyphs for coding sequences as best practice, after seeing recurring patterns in the analyzed publications.
  • domain assumption ACS Synthetic Biology figures represent adoption in the wider synthetic biology community.
    The journal has officially endorsed SBOL Visual, which may inflate compliance relative to other publication venues.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A decade of SBOL Visual: growing adoption of a diagram standard for engineering biology." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KTOGLGKI

@misc{pith2026250704601,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A decade of SBOL Visual: growing adoption of a diagram standard for engineering biology},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KTOGLGKI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04601}
}
read the original abstract

Standards play a crucial role in ensuring consistency, interoperability, and efficiency of communication across various disciplines. In the field of synthetic biology, the Synthetic Biology Open Language (SBOL) Visual standard was introduced in 2013 to establish a structured framework for visually representing genetic designs. Over the past decade, SBOL Visual has evolved from a simple set of 21 glyphs into a comprehensive diagrammatic language for biological designs. This perspective reflects on the first ten years of SBOL Visual, tracing its evolution from inception to version 3.0. We examine the standard's adoption over time, highlighting its growing use in scientific publications, the development of supporting visualization tools, and ongoing efforts to enhance clarity and accessibility in communicating genetic design information. While trends in adoption show steady increases, achieving full compliance and use of best practices will require additional efforts. Looking ahead, the continued refinement of SBOL Visual and broader community engagement will be essential to ensuring its long-term value as the field of synthetic biology develops.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.04601 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Development of the SBOL Visual standard over the past decade. The initial release fo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. SBOL Visual does not impose constraints on how diagrams are generated. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Examples of key SBOL Visual compliance rules. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Examples of key SBOL Visual compliance rules. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Examples of SBOL Visual best practices. 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Examples of SBOL Visual best practices. 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Examples of SBOL Visual best practices. 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: SBOL Visual adoption in genetic diagrams published in ACS Synthetic Biology from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Recent examples of diagrams in ACS Synthetic Biology that make good use of SBOL [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    IEEE Std 91a-1991 & IEEE Std 91-1984 1984, 1--160

    IEEE Standard Graphic Symbols for Logic Functions (Including and incorporating IEEE Std 91a-1991, Supplement to IEEE Standard Graphic Symbols for Logic Functions). IEEE Std 91a-1991 & IEEE Std 91-1984 1984, 1--160

    work page 1991

  2. [2]

    Unified Modeling Language (UML)

    Booch, G.; Jacobson, I.; Rumbaugh, J. Unified Modeling Language (UML). Rational Software Corporation, Santa Clara, CA, version 1997, 1

    work page 1997

  3. [3]

    Beal, J. et al. Communicating Structure and Function in Synthetic Biology Diagrams. ACS Synthetic Biology 2019, 8, 1818--1825

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Quinn, J. Y. et al. SBOL Visual: A Graphical Language for Genetic Designs. PLOS Biology 2015, 13, 1--9

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Synthetic biology open language visual (SBOL visual) version 3.0

    Baig, H.; Fontanarossa, P.; McLaughlin, J.; Scott-Brown, J.; Vaidyanathan, P.; Gorochowski, T.; Misirli, G.; Beal, J.; Myers, C. Synthetic biology open language visual (SBOL visual) version 3.0. Journal of Integrative Bioinformatics 2021, 18, 20210013

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Buecherl, L. et al. Synthetic biology open language (SBOL) version 3.1.0. Journal of Integrative Bioinformatics 2023, 20, 20220058

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    A.; Beal, J.; Mısırlı, G.; Grünberg, R.; Bartley, B

    McLaughlin, J. A.; Beal, J.; Mısırlı, G.; Grünberg, R.; Bartley, B. A.; Scott-Brown, J.; Vaidyanathan, P.; Fontanarrosa, P.; Oberortner, E.; Wipat, A.; Gorochowski, T. E.; Myers, C. J. The Synthetic Biology Open Language (SBOL) Version 3: Simplified Data Exchange for Bioengineering. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 2020, 8

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    J.; Beal, J.; Gorochowski, T

    Myers, C. J.; Beal, J.; Gorochowski, T. E.; Kuwahara, H.; Madsen, C.; McLaughlin, J. A.; Mısırlı, G.; Nguyen, T.; Oberortner, E.; Samineni, M.; Wipat, A.; Zhang, M.; Zundel, Z. A standard-enabled workflow for synthetic biology. Biochemical Society Transactions 2017, 45, 793--803

    work page 2017

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    E.; Mungall, C

    Eilbeck, K.; Lewis, S. E.; Mungall, C. J.; Yandell, M.; Stein, L.; Durbin, R.; Ashburner, M. The Sequence Ontology : a tool for the unification of genome annotations. Genome Biology 2005, 6, R44

    2005

  2. [10]

    Cox, R. S. et al. Synthetic Biology Open Language Visual (SBOL Visual) Version 2.0. Journal of Integrative Bioinformatics 2018, 15, 20170074

    2018

  3. [11]

    Madsen, C. et al. Synthetic Biology Open Language Visual (SBOL Visual) Version 2.1. Journal of Integrative Bioinformatics 2019, 16, 20180101

    2019

  4. [12]

    Baig, H. et al. Synthetic biology open language visual (SBOL visual) version 2.2. Journal of Integrative Bioinformatics 2020, 17, 20200014

    2020

  5. [13]

    Baig, H. et al. Synthetic biology open language visual (SBOL Visual) version 2.3. Journal of Integrative Bioinformatics 2021, 18, 20200045

    2021

  6. [14]

    Terry, L.; Earl, J.; Thayer, S.; Bridge, S.; Myers, C. J. SBOLCanvas: a visual editor for genetic designs. ACS Synthetic Biology 2021, 10, 1792--1796

    2021

  7. [15]

    A.; Pocock, M.; M s rl , G.; Madsen, C.; Wipat, A

    McLaughlin, J. A.; Pocock, M.; M s rl , G.; Madsen, C.; Wipat, A. VisBOL: web-based tools for synthetic biology design visualization. ACS synthetic biology 2016, 5, 874--876

    2016

  8. [16]

    A.; Wipat, A.; Myers, C

    Zhang, M.; McLaughlin, J. A.; Wipat, A.; Myers, C. J. SBOLDesigner 2: an intuitive tool for structural genetic design. ACS synthetic biology 2017, 6, 1150--1160

    2017

  9. [17]

    S.; Glassey, E.; Bartley, B

    Der, B. S.; Glassey, E.; Bartley, B. A.; Enghuus, C.; Goodman, D. B.; Gordon, D. B.; Voigt, C. A.; Gorochowski, T. E. DNAplotlib: programmable visualization of genetic designs and associated data. ACS synthetic biology 2017, 6, 1115--1119

    2017

  10. [18]

    J.; Scott-Brown, J.; Gorochowski, T

    Clark, C. J.; Scott-Brown, J.; Gorochowski, T. E. paraSBOLv: a foundation for standard-compliant genetic design visualization tools. Synthetic Biology 2021, 6, ysab022

    2021

  11. [19]

    E.; Stan, G.-B.; Wipat, A.; Myers, C

    M s rl , G.; Beal, J.; Gorochowski, T. E.; Stan, G.-B.; Wipat, A.; Myers, C. J. SBOL visual 2 ontology. ACS Synthetic Biology 2020, 9, 972--977

    2020

  12. [20]

    J.; Plahar, H

    Hillson, N. J.; Plahar, H. A.; Beal, J.; Prithviraj, R. Improving Synthetic Biology Communication: Recommended Practices for Visual Depiction and Digital Submission of Genetic Designs. ACS Synthetic Biology 2016, 5, 449--451

    2016

  13. [21]

    Towards collaborative and automated development of resources for data standards in synthetic biology

    Ajibode, J.; Beal, J.; Scott-Brown, J.; Gorochowski, T.; Myers, C.; Mısırlı, G. Towards collaborative and automated development of resources for data standards in synthetic biology. Proc. of the 13th Internation Workshop on Bio-Design Automation. 2021; pp 14--15

    2021

  14. [22]

    J.; Bader, G.; Gleeson, P.; Golebiewski, M.; Hucka, M.; Le Novère, N.; Nickerson, D

    Myers, C. J.; Bader, G.; Gleeson, P.; Golebiewski, M.; Hucka, M.; Le Novère, N.; Nickerson, D. P.; Schreiber, F.; Waltemath, D. A brief history of COMBINE. 2017 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC). pp 884--895, 00005 ISSN: 1558-4305

    2017

  15. [23]

    Bartoli, V.; Dixon, D. O. R.; Gorochowski, T. E. Automated Visualization of Genetic Designs Using DNAplotlib. Synthetic Biology: Methods and Protocols 2018, 399--409

    2018

  16. [24]

    E.; Keating, S

    Golebiewski, M.; Bader, G.; Gleeson, P.; Gorochowski, T. E.; Keating, S. M.; König, M.; Myers, C. J.; Nickerson, D. P.; Sommer, B.; Waltemath, D.; Schreiber, F. Specifications of standards in systems and synthetic biology: status, developments, and tools in 2024. Journal of In...

    2024

  17. [25]

    W.; Liang, B

    Kelly, V. W.; Liang, B. K.; Sirk, S. J. Living Therapeutics : The Next Frontier of Precision Medicine . ACS Synthetic Biology 2020, 9, 3184--3201

    2020

  18. [26]

    Continuous Cell-Free Replication and Evolution of Artificial Genomic DNA in a Compartmentalized Gene Expression System

    Okauchi, H.; Ichihashi, N. Continuous Cell-Free Replication and Evolution of Artificial Genomic DNA in a Compartmentalized Gene Expression System. ACS Synthetic Biology 2021, 10, 3507--3517

    2021

  19. [27]

    Ajibode, J.S. and Beal, J. and Scott-Brown, J. and Gorochowski, T.E. and Myers, C.J. and Mısırlı, G

    Craig, T.; Holland, R.; D’Amore, R.; Johnson, J. R.; McCue, H. V.; West, A.; Zulkower, V.; Tekotte, H.; Cai, Y.; Swan, D.; Davey, R. P.; Hertz-Fowler, C.; Hall, A.; Caddick, M. Leaf LIMS: A Flexible Laboratory Information Management System with a Synthetic Biology Focus. ACS S...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.