4.7 Article

Longitudinal characterization of multispecies microbial populations recovered from spaceflight potable water

期刊

NPJ BIOFILMS AND MICROBIOMES
卷 7, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41522-021-00240-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  2. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) [G-2017-9852]
  3. NASA [NNX17AC79G, 80NSSC19K1597]
  4. NIH SIG award [1 S10 OD023691-01]
  5. NASA [NNX17AC79G, 1003338] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study utilized microbial isolates from the ISS potable water system to profile five phenotypes and revealed a temporal dependence on interactive behaviors, suggesting possible microbial adaptation over time within the ecosystem. The findings have implications for microbial risk assessments of water systems in built environments in space and on Earth.
While sequencing technologies have revolutionized our knowledge of microbial diversity, little is known about the dynamic emergent phenotypes that arise within the context of mixed-species populations, which are not fully predicted using sequencing technologies alone. The International Space Station (ISS) is an isolated, closed human habitat that can be harnessed for cross-sectional and longitudinal functional microbiome studies. Using NASA-archived microbial isolates collected from the ISS potable water system over several years, we profiled five phenotypes: antibiotic resistance, metabolism, hemolysis, and biofilm structure/composition of individual or multispecies communities, which represent characteristics that could negatively impact astronaut health and life-support systems. Data revealed a temporal dependence on interactive behaviors, suggesting possible microbial adaptation over time within the ecosystem. This study represents one of the most extensive phenotypic characterization of ISS potable water microbiota with implications for microbial risk assessments of water systems in built environments in space and on Earth.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据