Elsevier

Biotechnology Advances

Volume 35, Issue 7, 15 November 2017, Pages 905-932
Biotechnology Advances

Research review paper
Toward biotechnology in space: High-throughput instruments for in situ biological research beyond Earth

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2017.04.003Get rights and content

Abstract

Space biotechnology is a nascent field aimed at applying tools of modern biology to advance our goals in space exploration. These advances rely on our ability to exploit in situ high throughput techniques for amplification and sequencing DNA, and measuring levels of RNA transcripts, proteins and metabolites in a cell. These techniques, collectively known as “omics” techniques have already revolutionized terrestrial biology. A number of on-going efforts are aimed at developing instruments to carry out “omics” research in space, in particular on board the International Space Station and small satellites. For space applications these instruments require substantial and creative reengineering that includes automation, miniaturization and ensuring that the device is resistant to conditions in space and works independently of the direction of the gravity vector. Different paths taken to meet these requirements for different “omics” instruments are the subjects of this review. The advantages and disadvantages of these instruments and technological solutions and their level of readiness for deployment in space are discussed. Considering that effects of space environments on terrestrial organisms appear to be global, it is argued that high throughput instruments are essential to advance (1) biomedical and physiological studies to control and reduce space-related stressors on living systems, (2) application of biology to life support and in situ resource utilization, (3) planetary protection, and (4) basic research about the limits on life in space. It is also argued that carrying out measurements in situ provides considerable advantages over the traditional space biology paradigm that relies on post-flight data analysis.

Introduction

Biotechnology is a major scientific, technological and economic driver that holds promise not only to change permanently our lives on the Earth, but also to advance, and perhaps even facilitate, long-term human exploration of space. To apply biotechnology in space we have to meet a number of challenges, both scientific and technical, not encountered in terrestrial setting. Terrestrial organisms away from Earth confront hostile environments characterized by multiple stresses. Some of these stresses, such as markedly reduced gravity or energetic, charged particles are unfamiliar, nearly impossible to protect against and unreliably reproduced on the ground. Other, such as very low pressures, temperature variations, high levels of UV radiation, desiccation or nutritional deprivation, although encountered in some terrestrial ecosystems, are often more extreme in space. To survive and thrive in space, living systems must cope with all these stress factors simultaneously. To what extent and how they are able to do so are central questions in space biology research. These questions are both profound and difficult to answer because they involve a combination of desired biological traits that mostly have not been a subject of natural selection on the Earth. Therefore, clues to engineering or reinforcing them that can be obtained from modern organisms or evolutionary studies are only very limited. Progress in this area is inextricably connected with our ability to explore space permanently and safely.

To control effects of space-related stressors on living systems one needs to understand how these stressors impact organisms at the cellular and molecular level. In the half-century of space exploration, multiple lines of evidence have accumulated to state with near-certainty that effects of space environments are not limited to a small number of genes or a single subcellular component, but instead influence many gene products and cell functions (Cervantes and Hong, 2016, Fernandez-Gonzalo et al., 2017, Foster et al., 2014, Najrana and Sanchez-Esteban, 2016, Taylor, 2015). These diverse effects can be understood only by taking a global, integrative approach that parallels an approach used to deal with consequences of terrestrial stresses, such as environmental pressures or states of disease (Buescher and Driggers, 2016, Jozefczuk et al., 2010, Nielsen, 2017). The approach relies heavily on developing, cost-effective techniques for monitoring the identity and activity of genes, proteins and metabolites in organisms or their consortia, and interpreting them in terms of global, complex interactions within biological systems (Mousavian et al., 2015, Pulido et al., 2015). These techniques belong respectively to research areas of genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics and metabolomics, collectively known as “omics”. Even though “omics” approaches are relatively new, they have already produced many important insights to biology and medicine (Egea et al., 2014, Li et al., 2016, Schmidt and Goodwin, 2013).

This review is focused on high-throughput instruments of “omics” that hold potential to advance qualitatively research in space biology. Even though such instruments are indispensable for basic science and biotechnology they have not been yet permanently used in spaceflight. In large part, this is because deploying “omics” tools onboard spacecraft, even those that are based on mature technologies, such as Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and measurements of gene expression, poses significant technical difficulties and might require substantial reengineering of their ground-based counterparts. The purpose of such effort is to meet the needs for miniaturization, automation, compatibility of protocols and materials with spacecraft or space habitats, reliability in the absence of gravity, and, at least in some cases, ruggedness and low power. This might appear to be a complex, time consuming and costly task. However, as we will argue in this review, with sufficient programmatic commitment and leveraging commercial partnerships, this task can be accomplished at reasonable costs in the next 2–3 years.

In the next section, we briefly discuss selected space biology research that has benefitted or will benefit from the application of “omics” tools. Subsequently, we review high-throughput ‘omics” technologies. We focus on information that these technologies provide, their advantages and disadvantages, and potential adaptations that might be required for space applications. This section may be particularly useful to experts in space exploration who are interested in the potential of biotechnology to advance this endeavor. Next, on-going efforts to develop flight instruments capable of carrying out “omics” measurements are described in detail. Since these instruments are not stand-alone devices, we also discuss supplementary capabilities needed to create “biological laboratories in space”. We close with conclusions and outlook for future investigations. In particular, we discuss why and under what circumstances “omics” analysis should be carried out in situ rather than post-flight in ground based laboratories.

Section snippets

Biological research in space

Biological research in space has a long history, the full account of which is beyond the scope of this review (Barratt and Baker, 2017, Nickerson et al., 2016, Nicogossian et al., 2016). However, in order to appreciate the type of investigations that are currently being conducted in space, it is important to review briefly the uniqueness of the space environment and how it impacts biological systems. Subsequently, we include here a few representative examples of studies that are closely related

High-throughput omics technologies for space applications

High-throughput, “omics” technologies for analysis of biological samples at the genomic, transcriptional, translational, and metabolic level would leverage our understanding of (a) behavior, in particular metabolism and regulation (including development), (b) genetic adaptations, and (c) identification of microorganisms in space. In this section, we briefly review the conceptual basis of these technologies and assess current abilities to adapt them for spaceflight in a relatively short period

High-throughput instruments in space

In the previous section, we briefly reviewed different omics technologies with the emphasis on both potential and challenges associated with their application in space research. In this section, we discuss how these challenges are being met in instruments that have been deployed or are being considered for deployment in space. These instruments are being developed with a broad range of goals in mind and differ markedly in their capabilities and technology readiness level. They are aimed at

Paradigms for biological research in space

For many years, space biology research relied on post-flight data analyses. This model has proven to be of only limited utility. Its shortcomings have been well documented. Due to constraints imposed by the model, quantity and quality of experiments suffered for a number of reasons, such as long waiting times between consecutive experiments, insufficient number of technical and biological replicates, problems with sample integrity and dissatisfaction of many biologists with the slow pace of

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. David J Smith for his comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Astrobiology Science and Technology Instrument Development, the NASA Astrobiology Program and the Office of Chief Technologist NASA Ames Research Center.

References (454)

  • B. Dang et al.

    Simulated microgravity increases heavy ion radiation-induced apoptosis in human B lymphoblasts

    Life Sci.

    (2014)
  • A.E. Drysdale et al.

    Life support approaches for Mars missions

    Adv. Space Res.

    (2003)
  • P. Ehrenfreund et al.

    The O/OREOS mission—astrobiology in low Earth orbit

    Acta Astronaut.

    (2014)
  • T.W. Fan et al.

    Applications of NMR spectroscopy to systems biochemistry

    Prog. Nucl. Magn. Reson. Spectrosc.

    (2016)
  • R.J. Ferl et al.

    The performance of KSC fixation tubes with RNALater for orbital experiments: a case study in ISS operations for molecular biology

    Adv. Space Res.

    (2011)
  • M.G. Adamski et al.

    A method for quantitative analysis of standard and high-throughput qPCR expression data based on input sample quantity

    PLoS One

    (2014)
  • D.G. Ahearn et al.

    Fungal colonization of synthetic substrates for use in space craft

    J. Ind. Microbiol.

    (1995)
  • S. Ambardar et al.

    High throughput sequencing: an overview of sequencing chemistry

    Indian J. Microbiol.

    (2016)
  • M. Arif et al.

    Primer modification improves rapid and sensitive in vitro and field-deployable assays for detection of high plains virus variants

    Appl. Environ. Microbiol.

    (2014)
  • K. Arunasri et al.

    Effect of simulated microgravity on E. coli K12 MG1655 growth and gene expression

    PLoS One

    (2013)
  • P.M. Ashton et al.

    MinION nanopore sequencing identifies the position and structure of a bacterial antibiotic resistance island

    Nat. Biotechnol.

    (2015)
  • E. Atas et al.

    DNA sequencing and bar-coding using solid-state nanopores

    Electrophoresis

    (2012)
  • H. Badri et al.

    Molecular investigation of the radiation resistance of edible cyanobacterium Arthrospira sp. PCC 8005

    Microbiol. Open

    (2015)
  • J.E. Baker et al.

    Radiation as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease

    Antioxid. Redox Signal.

    (2011)
  • H. Balsiger et al.

    ROSINA - Rosetta orbiter spectrometer for ion and neutral analysis

    Space Sci. Rev.

    (2007)
  • M. Bantscheff et al.

    Quantitative mass spectrometry in proteomics: critical review update from 2007 to the present

    Anal. Bioanal. Chem.

    (2012)
  • M. Bantscheff et al.

    Quantitative mass spectrometry in proteomics: a critical review

    Anal. Bioanal. Chem.

    (2007)
  • M. Baque et al.

    Detection of macromolecules in desert cyanobacteria mixed with a lunar mineral analogue after space simulations

    Orig. Life Evol. Biosph.

    (2014)
  • E.G. Barbosa et al.

    Value of a newly sequenced bacterial genome

    World J. Biol. Chem.

    (2014)
  • M.R. Barratt et al.

    Principles of Clinical Medicine for Space Flight

    (2017)
  • M. Beck et al.

    The quantitative proteome of a human cell line

    Mol. Syst. Biol.

    (2011)
  • J.L. Becker et al.

    Using space-based investigations to inform cancer research on Earth

    Nat. Rev. Cancer

    (2013)
  • J.N. Benardini et al.

    Implementing planetary protection measures on the Mars Science Laboratory

    Astrobiology

    (2014)
  • C.L. Benjamin et al.

    Decreases in thymopoiesis of astronauts returning from space flight

    JCI Insight

    (2016)
  • T. Berger et al.

    Cosmic radiation exposure of biological test systems during the EXPOSE-E mission

    Astrobiology

    (2012)
  • E. Bessede et al.

    Evaluation of the combination of the NucliSENS easyMAG and the EasyQ applications for the detection of mycoplasma pneumoniae and chlamydia pneumoniae in respiratory tract specimens

    Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis.

    (2010)
  • C. Betzen et al.

    Clinical proteomics: promises, challenges and limitations of affinity arrays

    Proteomics Clin. Appl.

    (2015)
  • A. Bieler et al.

    Abundant molecular oxygen in the coma of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

    Nature

    (2015)
  • K. Biemann et al.

    Search for organic and volatile inorganic compounds in two surface samples from the chryse planitia region of Mars

    Science

    (1976)
  • H. Binder et al.

    Time-course human urine proteomics in space-flight simulation experiments

    BMC Genomics

    (2014)
  • Y. Blanco et al.

    Deciphering the prokaryotic community and metabolisms in South African deep-mine biofilms through antibody microarrays and graph theory

    PLoS One

    (2014)
  • Y. Blanco et al.

    CYANOCHIP: an antibody microarray for high-taxonomical-resolution cyanobacterial monitoring

    Environ. Sci. Technol.

    (2015)
  • R. Boom et al.

    Rapid and simple method for purification of nucleic acids

    J. Clin. Microbiol.

    (1990)
  • E. Borgstrom et al.

    Large scale library generation for high throughput sequencing

    PLoS One

    (2011)
  • A.A. Brinley et al.

    Characterization of Epstein-Barr virus reactivation in a modeled spaceflight system

    J. Cell. Biochem.

    (2013)
  • E.L. Brodie et al.

    Urban aerosols harbor diverse and dynamic bacterial populations

    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.

    (2007)
  • J.M. Buescher et al.

    Integration of omics: more than the sum of its parts

    Cancer Metab.

    (2016)
  • S.A. Bustin

    Developments in real-time PCR research and molecular diagnostics

    Expert. Rev. Mol. Diagn.

    (2010)
  • S.A. Bustin et al.

    MIQE precis: practical implementation of minimum standard guidelines for fluorescence-based quantitative real-time PCR experiments

    BMC Mol. Biol.

    (2010)
  • S.A. Bustin et al.

    Pitfalls of quantitative real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction

    J. Biomol. Tech.

    (2004)
  • Cited by (43)

    • Biomedical payloads: A maturing application for CubeSats

      2022, Acta Astronautica
      Citation Excerpt :

      Biomedical CubeSat missions have been identified, at various stages of development, from academia including Cranfield University (BAMMSat) [33,34], Sapienza University of Rome (AstroBioCubeSat and GreenCube/CultCube) [35–37], Wrocław University of Technology (LabSat and a Mars mission) [38–40], R V College of Engineering (RVSat-1) [41], KTH Royal Institute of Technology (MIST/MOREBAC) [42], Nanjing University of Science and Technology/Fujian Academy of Agricultural Sciences (unnamed but growing Azolla plants) [43], North Dakota State University (Cabbage growing on a 3U) [44], Ecole Polytechnique de Montréal (Legumes on a 3U) [45], University of Chile (PlantSat) [46], and University of Nottingham (WormSail). Additionally, biomedical cube-payloads including GeMM, MisSt, μTitan (all NASA) [1], BiNOM (Samara NRU) [47], a modular, lab-on-chip payload from the Indian Institute of Science and ISRO [48], MICROCOSM (a joint project from different organisations in Kyiv, Ukraine) [49] and DSPP (Universities of Leicester and Exeter) [50] have been identified so far too. This is in addition to any applicable payloads developed for ISS cube-based facilities such as CubeLab, NanoLab, Bartolomeo or IceCUBES.

    • Review of space habitat designs for long term space explorations

      2021, Progress in Aerospace Sciences
      Citation Excerpt :

      Walker and Granjou assessed the space travel and environmental survival futures for the minimal biosphere system to sustaining human life based on MELiSSA constructed by the European Space Agency [111]. Other fundamental studies for space applications include medical and biotechnology in space [114,115], space plant growth [52], energy distribution [35], gas exchange [116], nitrogen cycling [117], risk analysis [118], animal behaviour [119], human emotional and cognitive states [120,121,122]. A coordinated and controlled space environment is also essential to maintain the physical and psychological health of the inhabitants.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text