Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36277820›Full record

ReviewPatterns (New York, N.Y.)2022

Routine omics collection is a golden opportunity for European human research in space and analog environments.

Henry Cope, Craig R G Willis, Matthew J MacKay, Lindsay A Rutter, Li Shean Toh, Philip M Williams, Raúl Herranz, Joseph Borg, Daniela Bezdan, Stefania Giacomello and 4 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Patterns (New York, N.Y.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Science of omics: a molecular space odyssey.Experimental physiology · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. 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

14 authors.

Henry CopeSchool of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Derby DE22 3DT, UK.
Craig R G WillisDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701, USA.
Matthew J MacKayDepartment of Physiology and Biophysics, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Lindsay A RutterTransborder Medical Research Center, and Department of Genome Biology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8575, Japan.
Li Shean TohSchool of Pharmacy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK.
Philip M WilliamsSchool of Pharmacy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK.
Raúl HerranzCentro de Investigaciones Biológicas Margarita Salas (CSIC), 28040 Madrid, Spain.
Joseph BorgDepartment of Applied Biomedical Science, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Malta, Msida MSD 2080, Malta.
Daniela BezdanInstitute of Medical Genetics and Applied Genomics, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Stefania GiacomelloScience for Life Laboratory, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 17165 Stockholm, Sweden.
Masafumi MurataniTransborder Medical Research Center, and Department of Genome Biology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8575, Japan.
Christopher E MasonDepartment of Physiology and Biophysics, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Timothy EtheridgeDepartment of Sport and Health Science, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter EX1 2LU, UK.
Nathaniel J SzewczykSchool of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Derby DE22 3DT, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Widespread generation and analysis of omics data have revolutionized molecular medicine on Earth, yet its power to yield new mechanistic insights and improve occupational health during spaceflight is still to be fully realized in humans. Nevertheless, rapid technological advancements and ever-regular spaceflight programs mean that longitudinal, standardized, and cost-effective collection of human space omics data are firmly within reach. Here, we consider the practicality and scientific return of different sampling methods and omic types in the context of human spaceflight. We also appraise ethical and legal considerations pertinent to omics data derived from European astronauts and spaceflight participants (SFPs). Ultimately, we propose that a routine omics collection program in spaceflight and analog environments presents a golden opportunity. Unlocking this bright future of artificial intelligence (AI)-driven analyses and personalized medicine approaches will require further investigation into best practices, including policy design and standardization of omics data, metadata, and sampling methods.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceastronaut ethicsbiobankcommercial spaceflightEuropean Space AgencyGDPRInternational Space Stationlongitudinal monitoringmultiomicspersonalized medicine

Identifiers

PMID36277820
PMCPMC9583032

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.