Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33544651›Full record

ArticleAstrobiology2021

An Alternative Approach for Assessing Biogenicity.

Joti Rouillard, Mark van Zuilen, Céline Pisapia, Juan-Manuel Garcia-Ruiz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Astrobiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Science advances · 2026
    Article
  2. Concomitant formation of protocells and prebiotic compounds under a plausible early Earth atmosphere.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Joti RouillardLaboratario de Estudios Cristalograficos, Instituto Andaluz de Ciencias de la Tierra, CSIC-Universidad de Granada, Armilla, Spain.
Mark van ZuilenInstitut de Physique du Globe de Paris, Université de Paris, CNRS UMR 7154, Paris, France.
Céline PisapiaInstitut de Physique du Globe de Paris, Université de Paris, CNRS UMR 7154, Paris, France.
Juan-Manuel Garcia-RuizLaboratario de Estudios Cristalograficos, Instituto Andaluz de Ciencias de la Tierra, CSIC-Universidad de Granada, Armilla, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The search for signs of life in the ancient rock record, extreme terrestrial environments, and other planetary bodies requires a well-established, universal, and unambiguous test of biogenicity. This is notably true for cellular remnants of microbial life, since their relatively simple morphologies resemble various abiogenic microstructures that occur in nature. Although lists of qualitative biogenicity criteria have been devised, debates regarding the biogenicity of many ancient microfossils persist to this day. We propose here an alternative quantitative approach for assessing the biogenicity of putative microfossils. In this theoretical approach, different hypotheses-involving biology or not and depending on the geologic setting-are put forward to explain the observed objects. These hypotheses correspond to specific types of microstructures/systems. Using test samples, the morphology and/or chemistry of these systems are then characterized at the scale of populations. Morphologic parameters include, for example, circularity, aspect ratio, and solidity, while chemical parameters could include elementary ratios (

Indexed as

FossilsGeologic SedimentsGeologyPlanetsAstrobiologyBiogenicityBiosignaturesCellular lifeEarly life

Identifiers

PMID33544651
PMCPMC7876362

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.