Rethinking escape frequency benchmarks for environmental applications of engineered microorganisms

Clicks: 6
ID: 327418
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #180 of 186 articles by views in Journal of applied microbiology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 186 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Biological containment strategies are widely used to reduce possible risks associated with genetically modified microorganisms (GMMs). In the biosafety literature, the performance of these systems is often benchmarked against a maximum escape frequency of one cell per 108 cells. This value is commonly attributed to the USA National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA. However, the guideline refers specifically to laboratory certification of certain host-vector systems and does not define an acceptable escape frequency for applications outside controlled laboratory environments. Despite this limited scope, the 10−8 criterion has been repeatedly cited in research articles and reviews as a general biosafety standard for GMMs. At the same time, quantitative data on escape frequency and survival of genetically modified microorganisms under realistic environmental conditions remain scarce. This lack of empirical evidence complicates environmental risk assessment and can hinder regulatory approval and technology transfer for applications intended to operate beyond the laboratory. Here, we clarify the origin and scope of the 10−8 escape criterion and discuss why it should not be interpreted as a universal biosafety standard. We argue that experimentally validated measurements of escape and survival under application-relevant conditions are urgently needed to support evidence-based biosafety assessment and the responsible development and deployment of GMMs.
Reference Key
openalex_W7207530026 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Sonia Mecacci, Vitor A P Martins dos Santos, Enrique Asin‐Garcia
Journal Journal of applied microbiology
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/jambio/lxag227
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/jambio/lxag227
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.