4.6 Article

The PLOS ONE Synthetic Biology Collection: Six Years and Counting

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 7, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043231

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation Awards [0850100, 0963988]
  2. National Institutes of Health [R01-GM078989, R01-GM095955]
  3. FP7 ERC [201249]
  4. ZINC-HUBS, Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion [MICINN BFU2010-17953]
  5. MEC-EMBL agreement
  6. Direct For Biological Sciences
  7. Div Of Biological Infrastructure [0963988] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  8. Direct For Biological Sciences
  9. Emerging Frontiers [0850100] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Since it was launched in 2006, PLOS ONE has published over fifty articles illustrating the many facets of the emerging field of synthetic biology. This article reviews these publications by organizing them into broad categories focused on DNA synthesis and assembly techniques, the development of libraries of biological parts, the use of synthetic biology in protein engineering applications, and the engineering of gene regulatory networks and metabolic pathways. Finally, we review articles that describe enabling technologies such as software and modeling, along with new instrumentation. In order to increase the visibility of this body of work, the papers have been assembled into the PLOS ONE Synthetic Biology Collection (www.ploscollections.org/synbio). Many of the innovative features of the PLOS ONE web site will help make this collection a resource that will support a lively dialogue between readers and authors of PLOS ONE synthetic biology papers. The content of the collection will be updated periodically by including relevant articles as they are published by the journal. Thus, we hope that this collection will continue to meet the publishing needs of the synthetic biology community.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available