Inhabited or Uninhabited? Pitfalls in the Interpretation of Possible Chemical Signatures of Extraterrestrial Life

The “Rare Earth” hypothesis—put forward by Ward and Brownlee in their 2000 book of the same title—states that prokaryote-type organisms may be common in the universe but animals and higher plants are exceedingly rare. If this idea is correct, the search for extraterrestrial life is essentially the s...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Stefan Fox, Henry Strasdeit
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2017-08-01
Series:Frontiers in Microbiology
Subjects:
Online Access:http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmicb.2017.01622/full
_version_ 1819179622733971456
author Stefan Fox
Henry Strasdeit
author_facet Stefan Fox
Henry Strasdeit
author_sort Stefan Fox
collection DOAJ
description The “Rare Earth” hypothesis—put forward by Ward and Brownlee in their 2000 book of the same title—states that prokaryote-type organisms may be common in the universe but animals and higher plants are exceedingly rare. If this idea is correct, the search for extraterrestrial life is essentially the search for microorganisms. Various indicators may be used to detect extant or extinct microbial life beyond Earth. Among them are chemical biosignatures, such as biomolecules and stable isotope ratios. The present minireview focuses on the major problems associated with the identification of chemical biosignatures. Two main types of misinterpretation are distinguished, namely false positive and false negative results. The former can be caused by terrestrial biogenic contaminants or by abiotic products. Terrestrial contamination is a common problem in space missions that search for biosignatures on other planets and moons. Abiotic organics can lead to false positive results if erroneously interpreted as biomolecules, but also to false negatives, for example when an abiotic source obscures a less productive biological one. In principle, all types of putative chemical biosignatures are prone to misinterpretation. Some, however, are more reliable (“stronger”) than others. These include: (i) homochiral polymers of defined length and sequence, comparable to proteins and polynucleotides; (ii) enantiopure compounds; (iii) the existence of only a subset of molecules when abiotic syntheses would produce a continuous range of molecules; the proteinogenic amino acids constitute such a subset. These considerations are particularly important for life detection missions to solar system bodies such as Mars, Europa, and Enceladus.
first_indexed 2024-12-22T22:01:23Z
format Article
id doaj.art-770340f5698c40dabf2feb4a259941a7
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1664-302X
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-22T22:01:23Z
publishDate 2017-08-01
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format Article
series Frontiers in Microbiology
spelling doaj.art-770340f5698c40dabf2feb4a259941a72022-12-21T18:11:07ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Microbiology1664-302X2017-08-01810.3389/fmicb.2017.01622285161Inhabited or Uninhabited? Pitfalls in the Interpretation of Possible Chemical Signatures of Extraterrestrial LifeStefan FoxHenry StrasdeitThe “Rare Earth” hypothesis—put forward by Ward and Brownlee in their 2000 book of the same title—states that prokaryote-type organisms may be common in the universe but animals and higher plants are exceedingly rare. If this idea is correct, the search for extraterrestrial life is essentially the search for microorganisms. Various indicators may be used to detect extant or extinct microbial life beyond Earth. Among them are chemical biosignatures, such as biomolecules and stable isotope ratios. The present minireview focuses on the major problems associated with the identification of chemical biosignatures. Two main types of misinterpretation are distinguished, namely false positive and false negative results. The former can be caused by terrestrial biogenic contaminants or by abiotic products. Terrestrial contamination is a common problem in space missions that search for biosignatures on other planets and moons. Abiotic organics can lead to false positive results if erroneously interpreted as biomolecules, but also to false negatives, for example when an abiotic source obscures a less productive biological one. In principle, all types of putative chemical biosignatures are prone to misinterpretation. Some, however, are more reliable (“stronger”) than others. These include: (i) homochiral polymers of defined length and sequence, comparable to proteins and polynucleotides; (ii) enantiopure compounds; (iii) the existence of only a subset of molecules when abiotic syntheses would produce a continuous range of molecules; the proteinogenic amino acids constitute such a subset. These considerations are particularly important for life detection missions to solar system bodies such as Mars, Europa, and Enceladus.http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmicb.2017.01622/fullfalse positivesfalse negativescontaminantsabiotic organicsbiomoleculesinorganic metabolites
spellingShingle Stefan Fox
Henry Strasdeit
Inhabited or Uninhabited? Pitfalls in the Interpretation of Possible Chemical Signatures of Extraterrestrial Life
Frontiers in Microbiology
false positives
false negatives
contaminants
abiotic organics
biomolecules
inorganic metabolites
title Inhabited or Uninhabited? Pitfalls in the Interpretation of Possible Chemical Signatures of Extraterrestrial Life
title_full Inhabited or Uninhabited? Pitfalls in the Interpretation of Possible Chemical Signatures of Extraterrestrial Life
title_fullStr Inhabited or Uninhabited? Pitfalls in the Interpretation of Possible Chemical Signatures of Extraterrestrial Life
title_full_unstemmed Inhabited or Uninhabited? Pitfalls in the Interpretation of Possible Chemical Signatures of Extraterrestrial Life
title_short Inhabited or Uninhabited? Pitfalls in the Interpretation of Possible Chemical Signatures of Extraterrestrial Life
title_sort inhabited or uninhabited pitfalls in the interpretation of possible chemical signatures of extraterrestrial life
topic false positives
false negatives
contaminants
abiotic organics
biomolecules
inorganic metabolites
url http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmicb.2017.01622/full
work_keys_str_mv AT stefanfox inhabitedoruninhabitedpitfallsintheinterpretationofpossiblechemicalsignaturesofextraterrestriallife
AT henrystrasdeit inhabitedoruninhabitedpitfallsintheinterpretationofpossiblechemicalsignaturesofextraterrestriallife