Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “core microbiome”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

4 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2025

The Microbiome of A Tomato Crop Grown Under Different Lighting Regimes on the International Space Station

The VEG-05 experiment presented here investigated the effect of red-rich and blue-rich light recipes in Veggie on the microbiome of the Veggie facility and the plant tissues of a dwarf tomato variety, Solanum lycopersicum cv. Red Robin. For food safety, the plants were screened using culture-based methods for potential human pathogens that may cause infection by consumption of the fruit. The microbiome was investigated using bacterial 16S and fungal ITS sequencing methods to enumerate and identify bacterial and fungal communities on tomato fruit, roots, leaves, rooting substrate, and Veggie facility surfaces grown under blue-rich or red-rich lighting. Comparisons of microbial communities were made between lighting treatments, as well as for flight and ground controls. This analysis determined the core microbiome and microbiological composition for tomato plants grown under a blue-rich or red-rich lighting treatment and microgravity conditions. Culture-based pathogen screening, corroborated by 16S and ITS sequencing, yielded negative results. Bacterial and fungal counts were lower for ground controls than in-flight samples. However, there were no differences in microbial counts between lighting treatments. Regardless of lighting treatment, plant components shared a core microbiome, although some differences were observed in genera between lighting treatments.

Veggie↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Unlocking the Microbiome of the International Space Station

With the start of human occupation more than 22 years ago, the microbiome of International Space Station (ISS) has been monitored to assess risk to both crew and craft. Historically, this monitoring has been achieved through onboard culture and ground-based analyses. Data spanning this timeframe are descriptive of a semi-closed, human occupied environment with associations to crew changes and process escapes within the environmental control and life support systems. While this approach has served to provide alerts to anomalies and overall confidence in the controls in place, the data are limited to the media type and growth conditions used. The bias toward the detection of culturable organisms has depicted an overall lack in biodiversity. As NASA leaves the ISS to focus on exploration, it is critical to fully understand its microbiome and its possible association to the noted positive influence on crew and vehicle health. The implementation of culture-independent, nanopore sequencing-based studies, both onboard the ISS and with returned ground samples, is revealing a more thorough depiction of the microbiome. As noted with pervious culture-based data, there is a common core microbiome across time and location, but key distinct areas of greater diversity exist. Through further investigation, these areas are emerging as unique ecological niches, potentially resulting in environmentally driven microbial selection. Moreover, the presence of some noted taxa within these unique locations has implications for crew health, planetary protection, and controls used in future spacecraft systems. The ability to perform in situ profiling of the ISS microbiome is transforming how NASA assesses risk and is a critical tool towards monitoring the establishment of the environmental microbiome in exploration spacecraft.

Sarah Stahl-Rommel↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Genetic Determinants of Microbial Survival in Space

Space flight agencies envision a future for humankind beyond Earth, including missions back to the Moon and to Mars in the coming decades. Sending humans into space inevitably includes their microbiomes as well, leading to trillions of bacteria being shed in their living areas. These bacteria shape the lives of their hosts as well as their environment; thus, it is crucial to understand the adaptations of these microbial spacefarers in spaceflight conditions. We aimed to elucidate the genetic determinants of microbial survival in space using a pan-genome analysis of 12 genera cultured from the International Space Station (ISS) from 2017 to 2018. Analysis was performed on each of the genera individually with terrestrial analogs to identify the core and accessory genomes of the spaceflight and terrestrial strains. We then compared the flight and terrestrial core and accessory genomes for each genera using a Bray-Curtis index and visualized the resulting dissimilarity using an Non-Metric Dimensional Scaling plot. The core proteins available in only the spaceflight organisms were then manually characterized for function and genomic location. In every core genome comparison in each genus, there was significant dissimilarity in the core of the spaceflight organisms when compared to the terrestrial organisms. This trend was present in some of the accessory genomes, but was not ubiquitous. Functional analysis of the core content of the ISS genomes showed the majority of genes unique to the core were clustered by location. These gene clusters suggested a set of genetic determinants confer survival in spacecraft-built environments, notably through the uptake of extracellular DNA such as bacteriophage and plasmids. The clear difference between spaceflight and terrestrial microorganisms shows that spaceflight conditions are selective, which has long term implications for their human hosts and environments.

MoBE↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Does Collection Time Bias the Ecology of Cleanroom Air Samples?

Microbial monitoring of astromaterials collections has taken on increased importance with the return of biologically sensitive samples from the asteroids Ryugu and Bennu and the initiation of the Mars Sample Return Program. Terrestrial bacteria and fungi can alter the mineralogy and organic composition of our collections causing irreversible contamination of pristine samples and increasing the risk of false positives for life detection measurements. NASA has conducted routine microbial monitoring of its existing collections since 20181. Initial monitoring focused on surface samples collected with foam swabs. Although, airborne microbiology is often decoupled from surface microbiology in the built environment2 culture-based air sampling techniques like impactors were not compliant with existing contamination control requirements. Bringing organic rich media, gelatin or liquids into curation cleanrooms presents an unacceptable risk to pristine samples. In 2022 NASA purchased a materials complaint air sampler and began collecting air samples from the cleanrooms in addition to surface samples3. The new instrument uses an electret filter to collect samples that are suitable for cultivating organisms or for direct DNA sequencing. Preliminary DNA sequencing results appeared to indicate that longer sampling times biased the microbial community in favor of hearty, spore-forming bacteria3. We present the results of a study comparing overnight sampling (17 hours) to short (1 hour) sampling of unoccupied curation cleanrooms. The results will help us optimize our monitoring protocols and develop a more detailed inventory of the ecology of astromaterials curation cleanrooms. Methods: We analyzed 72 paired air samples from six different cleanrooms including the meteorite processing lab (ISO 7 equivalent, 16 samples), the lunar lab (ISO 6 equivalent, 10 samples), the stardust lab (ISO 5 equivalent 14 samples), the OSIRIS-REx lab (ISO 5 equivalent, 12 samples), the Hayabusa2 lab (ISO 5 equivalent, 14 samples), and the Genesis lab (ISO 4 equivalent, 6 samples). All the samples were collected with an InnovaPrep Bobcat air sampler operating at a sampling rate of 200 L/min. The sampler operates for 5 minutes out of every 20 minute period. Half of the samples were collected by filtering 3,000L (15 min. of active sampling) of air across an electret filter for one hour. The rest of the samples were collected by filtering approximately 51,000 L air across the filter overnight (~17 hours, 255 min. of active sampling). Cells were eluted from the filter using 6-7 ml of pressurized 0.15% tween 20 in PBS (phosphate buffered saline). This liquid was used to cultivate bacteria according to previously published methods1,4,5 and for DNA extraction and next generation sequencing. DNA was extracted with a Qiagen MagAttract PowerMicrobiome kit6. To identify bacteria and archaea, the 16S rRNA gene was amplified using Earth Microbiome primers for the V4 region 7. The amplified DNA was sequenced on an Illumina MiSeq using a V3 reagent kit. The resulting sequences were processed using DADA2 and QIIME2 as implemented on the EDGE bioinformatics platform8–10. Results: Only two of the 72 samples had no amplifiable DNA. Amplified DNA concentrations ranged from 2.67 – 0.272 ng/µl. The median concentration of amplified DNA for the 1 hour samples was 0.770 ± 0.368 ng/µl. The median concentration of amplified DNA for the overnight samples was 0.877 ± 0.434 ng/µl. On average the overnight samples had slightly more sequences (58,960 vs. 59,456) and ASV’s (amplicon sequence variants) (60 vs 64.5) than the one hour samples, but these differences are not statistically significant. The most abundant ASV in every sample mapped to the genus Cupravidus. ASV’s mapping to the genuses Bacillus, Schlegelella, Thermus, and Staphylococcus were also common. Discussion and Future Work: Alpha diversity statistics like Shannon Entropy and Faith Phylogenetic Diversity are used to describe the diversity of organisms in a single sample. If a longer sampling time was biasing the data, we would expect to see a change in these diversity statistics vs. sample time. However, we did not observe this in our data. The median Shannon entropy was slightly higher for the overnight samples (3.773 vs 3.611) as was the Faith Phylogenetic Diversity (4.042 vs 3.596), but both values were within a standard deviation of each other for the two sampling times (Fig. 1). It is unlikely, that the longer sampling time is introducing bias into our data. We do observe a significant decrease in diversity when comparing the air samples by lab. The Genesis lab (ISO 4 equivalent) has a lower median number of ASV’s (45.5) than the other labs (62). Median values for Shannon Entropy (3.717 vs. 3.430) and Faith Phylogenetic Diversity (3.796 vs. 3.548) are also lower for Genesis, but those values are with one standard deviation of each other for the different sampling times. This is consistent with previous culture-based results suggesting that the environment in cleanrooms tends to select for a core group of organisms capable of surviving under dry, low nutrient, conditions. The presence of the ASV’s mapping to Cupravidus and Thermus in our sequencing blanks and controls suggests that several of the most common organisms in our samples represent contaminants from the reagents used to perform the DNA extractions and sequencing. Further work is needed to identify these contaminants, remove them from our data and recalculate the diversity statistics. This is a systematic error. Therefore, we do not expect removing the sequencing contaminants to change our conclusions. Longer air sample collection times appear to result in slightly higher diversity and do not bias the results towards “hardy” bacteria like spore-formers. Based on these preliminary results we conclude that sampling at least 3,000 liters of air is sufficient to capture the microbial diversity of cleanrooms, and that air samples can also be collected overnight without negatively impacting diversity. These results allow us to be flexible when designing microbial monitoring plans so that they do not interfere with routine lab activity. References: 1. Regberg, A. B. et al. 49th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2018). 2. The United States Pharmacopeial Convention. USP General Chapter <1116> (2013). 3. Regberg, A. B., et al. 54th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2023). 4. Regberg, A. B. et al. 53rd Lunar and Planetary Science Conference ( 2022). 5. Davis, R. E.,et al. 50th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2019). 6. Qiagen. MagAttract® PowerMicrobiome® DNA/RNA EP Kit Handbook. (2018). 7. Walters, W. et al. mSystems 1, (2015). 8. Callahan, B. J. et al. Nat. Methods 13, 581–583 (2016). 9. Hall, M. & Beiko, R. G. Microbiome Analysis: Methods and Protocols113–129 (Springer, 2018). 10. Philipson, C. et al. Bio-Protoc. 7, e2622 (2017).

A. B. Regberg↗