↓ Skip to main content

Microbial succession in an inflated lunar/Mars analog habitat during a 30-day human occupation

Overview of attention for article published in Microbiome, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
9 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Microbial succession in an inflated lunar/Mars analog habitat during a 30-day human occupation
Published in
Microbiome, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40168-016-0167-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Teresa Mayer, Adriana Blachowicz, Alexander J. Probst, Parag Vaishampayan, Aleksandra Checinska, Tiffany Swarmer, Pablo de Leon, Kasthuri Venkateswaran

Abstract

For potential future human missions to the Moon or Mars and sustained presence in the International Space Station, a safe enclosed habitat environment for astronauts is required. Potential microbial contamination of closed habitats presents a risk for crewmembers due to reduced human immune response during long-term confinement. To make future habitat designs safer for crewmembers, lessons learned from characterizing analogous habitats is very critical. One of the key issues is that how human presence influences the accumulation of microorganisms in the closed habitat. Molecular technologies, along with traditional microbiological methods, were utilized to catalog microbial succession during a 30-day human occupation of a simulated inflatable lunar/Mars habitat. Surface samples were collected at different time points to capture the complete spectrum of viable and potential opportunistic pathogenic bacterial population. Traditional cultivation, propidium monoazide (PMA)-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), and adenosine triphosphate (ATP) assays were employed to estimate the cultivable, viable, and metabolically active microbial population, respectively. Next-generation sequencing was used to elucidate the microbial dynamics and community profiles at different locations of the habitat during varying time points. Statistical analyses confirm that occupation time has a strong influence on bacterial community profiles. The Day 0 samples (before human occupation) have a very different microbial diversity compared to the later three time points. Members of Proteobacteria (esp. Oxalobacteraceae and Caulobacteraceae) and Firmicutes (esp. Bacillaceae) were most abundant before human occupation (Day 0), while other members of Firmicutes (Clostridiales) and Actinobacteria (esp. Corynebacteriaceae) were abundant during the 30-day occupation. Treatment of samples with PMA (a DNA-intercalating dye for selective detection of viable microbial population) had a significant effect on the microbial diversity compared to non-PMA-treated samples. Statistical analyses revealed a significant difference in community structure of samples over time, particularly of the bacteriomes existing before human occupation of the habitat (Day 0 sampling) and after occupation (Day 13, Day 20, and Day 30 samplings). Actinobacteria (mainly Corynebacteriaceae) and Firmicutes (mainly Clostridiales Incertae Sedis XI and Staphylococcaceae) were shown to increase over the occupation time period. The results of this study revealed a strong relationship between human presence and succession of microbial diversity in a closed habitat. Consequently, it is necessary to develop methods and tools for effective maintenance of a closed system to enable safe human habitation in enclosed environments on Earth and beyond.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 75 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 25%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 12%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Master 7 9%
Other 16 21%
Unknown 10 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 32%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 5%
Engineering 3 4%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 13 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 87. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 July 2017.
All research outputs
#475,934
of 24,885,505 outputs
Outputs from Microbiome
#120
of 1,705 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,527
of 346,099 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microbiome
#3
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,885,505 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,705 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 346,099 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.