Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37085475›Full record

ReviewNature communications2023

Microbial biomanufacturing for space-exploration-what to take and when to make.

Nils J H Averesch, Aaron J Berliner, Shannon N Nangle, Spencer Zezulka, Gretchen L Vengerova, Davian Ho, Cameran A Casale, Benjamin A E Lehner, Jessica E Snyder, Kevin B Clark and 3 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature communications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Proteomics of long-term acclimation of the desert cyanobacteriumCurrent research in microbial sciences · 2026
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Evaluation of theFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025
    Article
  20. Review
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

13 authors.

Nils J H Averesch *Center for the Utilization of Biological Engineering in Space (CUBES), Berkeley, CA, USA. nils.averesch@uq.net.au.ORCID 0000-0002-6389-2646
Aaron J Berliner *Center for the Utilization of Biological Engineering in Space (CUBES), Berkeley, CA, USA. aaron.berliner@berkeley.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-4817-3926
Shannon N Nangle *Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA. shannon@circebioscience.com.
Spencer ZezulkaCenter for the Utilization of Biological Engineering in Space (CUBES), Berkeley, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5076-1359
Gretchen L VengerovaCenter for the Utilization of Biological Engineering in Space (CUBES), Berkeley, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7428-0357
Davian HoCenter for the Utilization of Biological Engineering in Space (CUBES), Berkeley, CA, USA.
Cameran A CasaleCenter for the Utilization of Biological Engineering in Space (CUBES), Berkeley, CA, USA.
Benjamin A E LehnerDepartment of Bionanoscience, Delft University of Technology, Delft, South Holland, Netherlands.
Jessica E SnyderBlue Marble Space Institute of Science, Seattle, WA, USA.
Kevin B ClarkCures Within Reach, Chicago, IL, USA.
Lewis R DartnellDepartment of Life Sciences, University of Westminster, London, UK.
Craig S CriddleCenter for the Utilization of Biological Engineering in Space (CUBES), Berkeley, CA, USA.
Adam P ArkinCenter for the Utilization of Biological Engineering in Space (CUBES), Berkeley, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4999-2931

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As renewed interest in human space-exploration intensifies, a coherent and modernized strategy for mission design and planning has become increasingly crucial. Biotechnology has emerged as a promising approach to increase resilience, flexibility, and efficiency of missions, by virtue of its ability to effectively utilize in situ resources and reclaim resources from waste streams. Here we outline four primary mission-classes on Moon and Mars that drive a staged and accretive biomanufacturing strategy. Each class requires a unique approach to integrate biomanufacturing into the existing mission-architecture and so faces unique challenges in technology development. These challenges stem directly from the resources available in a given mission-class-the degree to which feedstocks are derived from cargo and in situ resources-and the degree to which loop-closure is necessary. As mission duration and distance from Earth increase, the benefits of specialized, sustainable biomanufacturing processes also increase. Consequentially, we define specific design-scenarios and quantify the usefulness of in-space biomanufacturing, to guide techno-economics of space-missions. Especially materials emerged as a potentially pivotal target for biomanufacturing with large impact on up-mass cost. Subsequently, we outline the processes needed for development, testing, and deployment of requisite technologies. As space-related technology development often does, these advancements are likely to have profound implications for the creation of a resilient circular bioeconomy on Earth.

Indexed as

MarsSpace FlightBiotechnologyHumansMoon

Identifiers

PMID37085475
PMCPMC10121718

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.