Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Curation”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 361 records · Page 20
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Open Science for Life in Space: Data Sharing and Tools for Knowledge Discovery

The next era in human space exploration is rapidly approaching and will require the use of countermeasures to deep space health hazards. The development of countermeasures (or, the re-purposing of existing agents) will be highly dependent on our understanding of basic biological responses to space stressors (e.g. ionizing radiation, altered gravitational fields, altered day-night cycles, confinement, isolation, hostile-closed environments, distance-duration from Earth, exposure to celestial regolith, etc.). The fast-growing array of space biological data, which in the past was simply archived after minimal analysis, holds great potential if it can be reorganized and formatted for Open Science. Organizing the data for such analysis is a challenge because of its diverse nature (molecular, cellular, tissue, imaging, whole organism and behavior). We will discuss here several strategies that NASA’s Biological and Physical Science Division has put in place to maximize the return on investment for spaceflight bioscience data. Open Science, as a scientific philosophy, is the concept that the more people who have access to the data, the more knowledge will be gained from it. This guiding principle led NASA to develop GeneLab in 2015. GeneLab houses spaceflight and relevant ground-based multi-omics data, and has grown to ~400 transcriptomic, proteomic, metabolomic and epigenomic datasets from plant, rodent, small animal, and microbial space experiments. GeneLab provides users with various tools for data analysis and a visualization portal that allows users to interact with gene expression data from space-related ‘omics experiments. Open Science is also about building scientific communities, and with this spirit in mind, GeneLab has spawned several Analysis Working Groups (AWGs), comprised of more than 200 volunteer scientists. The AWGs initially provided feedback on the processing pipeline and metadata ‘omics standards for GeneLab. Over the last few years, they have become a community-driven science enterprise, engaging in large meta-analysis of GeneLab datasets, resulting in 10 publications (beyond the originally submitted research). Overall, the Open Science nature of GeneLab has resulted in a high degree of data re-use, resulting in 38 additional publications derived from the original 67 publication over the past four years. The enormous success and knowledge gained from GeneLab has led to a collection of sister NASA “Open Science Data Repositories (OSDR)” and research support groups. These include the NASA Ames Life Sciences Data Archive (ALSDA), the NASA Biological Institutional Scientific Collection (NBISC), and the Biospecimen Sharing Program (BSP). All are adopting the GeneLab data architecture system to maximize open-access, find-ability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR). ALSDA collects and curates phenotypic-physiological bioimaging-behavioral data from space and space-relevant non-human experiments, oftentimes coming from the same omics-associated experimental datasets found in GeneLab. Since 2021, a community of ~100 researchers have rallied around ALSDA, to provide feedback in a new ALSDA AWG focused on phenotypic-physiological investigation-sample-assay metadata standards (e.g., Micro-Computed Tomography, Light/Fluorescence Microscopy, Western Blot, Flow Cytometry, Novel Object Recognition, Elevated Plus Maze, etc. of ~50 assays collected). These standards are part of a new single point-of-entry data submission portal for all non-human Space Biology and Human Research Program principal investigators, to submit, curate, and share their research data. With open-access space biological data now collected and curated together with rich metadata, and with the potential for linkage to “big data” from the international biological and medical communities (NIH, EBI, etc.), the artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) era has started for Space Biology. Several other talks will cover these topics in this conference.

life sciences↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Mars Sample Return (MSR) Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) Assessment Study (MSAS)

NASA, in partnership with the European Space Agency (ESA), is seeking to return Martian geological and atmospheric samples to Earth for scientific study in the early 2030s. Due to the possibility that the samples could contain extraterrestrial life, Mars Sample Return (MSR) is classified as a Category V: Restricted Earth Return mission by the NASA Planetary Protection Office. As a result of this classification, a MSR Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) must not only provide a pristine environment to ensure samples are protected from terrestrial contamination for scientific investigations, it must also provide high-containment (biosafety level 4 [BSL-4]-equivalence) to isolate the samples from Earth’s biosphere until the samples are deemed safe for release and/or sterilized. The nominal utilization period for a SRF is anticipated to be 2-5 years and is intended to enable curation activities, biohazard assessment, select early science activities, and the rapid release of samples to the scientific community. However, to account for possible delays in schedule or the identification of extant life, this anticipated period of time must be flexible to accommodate schedule extensions and contingency plans. Due to requirements for high-level biological containment and cleanliness, a traditional receiving/curation facility cannot be utilized for MSR. Therefore, beginning in 2022, NASA Johnson Space Center is performing a MSR SRF Assessment Study (MSAS) to investigate the most optimal facility modality for a MSR SRF, as well as start to define programmatic early estimate of costs and schedules before the initial design phase begins. NASA is partnering with industry contractors (architectural and engineering firms with BSL-4 and cleanroom technology experience, as well as other contracted infrastructure and construction specialists) along with selected experts from NASA, ESA, existing U.S. BSL-4 facilities, and other U.S. government agencies, to carry out the assessment study. The MSAS should also aid in the future refinement of the science requirements (e.g., contamination control, equipment accommodations) before site-specific design would commence. As part of the MSAS, NASA is planning to assess an array of possibilities for a MSR SRF. One of the main considerations is the facility modality and whether an existing BSL-4 facility can be utilized (for some or all functions); or, if new constructure would be required, would a traditional fixed facility or a modular facility the best choice. MSAS will also investigate the ability of the modalities to accommodate two different facility capability endmembers: 1) a minimal facility focusing on biohazard assessment and curation tasks with a small footprint, and 2) an enhanced facility with additional capabilities to enable expedited processing and the completion of time-sensitive and (some) sterilization-sensitive science. The assessment is intended to generate information that will inform the selection of facility modalities for high-level conceptual design development. While the assessment study will focus on SRF requirements for accommodating curation, science, and sample safety assessment infrastructure, it will also consider an array of other factors, such as ease of access for international users, decommissioning, repurposing, future sale or lease following MSR’s use of the facility, and uncontained preparatory laboratory spaces. Upon completion of the study, the preferred modality and refined requirements would be utilized for site-specific design but will not be finalized until NASA’s completion of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.

A.D. Harrington↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Open Science for Life in Space: Data Sharing and Tools for Knowledge Discovery

The next era in human space exploration is rapidly approaching and will require the use of countermeasures to deep space health hazards. The development of countermeasures (or, there-purposing of existing agents) will be highly dependent on our understanding of basic biological responses to space stressors (e.g. ionizing radiation, altered gravitational fields, altered day-night cycles, confinement, isolation, hostile-closed environments, distance-duration from Earth, exposure to celestial regolith, etc.). The fast-growing array of space biological data, which in the past was simply archived after minimal analysis, holds great potential if it can be reorganized and formatted for Open Science. Organizing the data for such analysis is a challenge because of its diverse nature (molecular, cellular, tissue, imaging, whole organism and behavior). We will discuss here several strategies that NASA's Biological and Physical Science Division has put in place to maximize the return on investment for spaceflight bioscience data. Open Science, as a scientific philosophy, is the concept that the more people who have access to the data, the more knowledge will be gained from it. This guiding principle led NASA to develop GeneLab in 2015. GeneLab houses spaceflight and relevant ground-based multi-omics data, and has grown to ~400 transcriptomatic, proteomic, metabolomic and epigenomic datasets from plant, rodent, small animal, and microbial space experiments. GeneLab provides users with various tools for data analysis and a visualization portal that allows users to interact with gene expression data from space-related 'omics experiments. Open Science is also about building scientific communities, and with this spirit in mind, GeneLab has spawned several Analysis Working Groups (AWGs), comprised of more than 200 volunteer scientists. The AWGs initially provided feedback on the processing pipeline and metadata 'omics standards for GeneLab. Over the last few years, they have become a community-driven science enterprise, engaging in large meta-analysis of GeneLab datasets, resulting in 10 publications (beyond the originally submitted research). Overall, the Open Science nature of GeneLab has resulted in a high degree of data-use, resulting in 40 enabled publications by open data. The enormous success and knowledge gained from GeneLab has led to a collection of sister NASA "Open Science Data Repositories (OSDR)" and research support groups. These include the NASA Ames Life Sciences Data Archive (ALSDA), the NASA Biological Institutional Scientific Collection (NBISC), and the Biospecimen Sharing Program (BSP). All are adopting the GeneLab data architecture system to maximize open-access, find-ability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR). ALSDA collects and curates phenotypic-physiological bioimaging-behavioral data from space and space-relevant non-human experiments, oftentimes coming from the same omics-associated experimental datasets found in GeneLab. Since 2021, a community of ~100 researchers have rallied around ALSDA, to provide feedback in a new ALSDA AWG focused on phenotypic-physiological investigation-sample-assay metadata standards (e.g., Micro-Computed Tomography, Light/Flourescence Microscopy, Western Blot, Flow Cytometry, Novel Object Recognition, Elevated Plus Maze, etc. of ~50 assays collected). These standards are part of a new single point-of-entry data submission portal for all non-human Space Biology and Human Research Program principal investigators, to submit, curate, and share their research data. With open-access space biological data now collected and curated together with rich metadata, and with the potential for linkage to "big data" from the international biological and medical communities (NIH, EBI, etc.), the artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) era has started for Space Biology.

omics↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

From Apollo to Artemis: How Processing ANGSA Core Samples 73001/2 Can Help to Prepare for Future Sample Return Missions to the Moon and Beyond.

Introduction: Apollo Sample 73001/2 is a ~71cm long double drive tube consisting of an upper part (73002) and a lower part (73001) that contains regolith collected near Lara Crater at the Apollo 17 site, Station 3. The double drive tube is believed to have penetrated a lunar landslide deposit that was transported from the slope of the South Massif into the Taurus-Littrow Valley [1]. As part of the ANGSA (Apollo Next Generation Sample Analyses) initiative, preparing a preliminary examination (PE) catalog of 73001/2 is a crucial first step for the early identification of material types such as rock fragments and potential stratigraphy within the core. Many new curation and scientific tools such as X-ray computed tomography (XCT) [3], multi-spectral imaging [4], and gas extraction manifold with piercing tool [5-7], have been applied to the ANGSA core to benefit curation strategy, PE efforts, sample allocation to the planetary science community, and ultimately help to prepare for future sample return missions like Artemis. 73001/2 Preliminary Examination and Processing: Sample 73002 was successfully opened and extruded in Nov. 2019 and fully dissected at the end of 2021. Sample 73001 (Fig. 1) was successfully extruded in March 2022 after careful planning before opening the Core Sample Vacuum Container (CSVC) that was holding the drive tube of 73001. XCT, as part of PE, was used to scan the bottom and top part of the 73001 core tube within the CSVC prior to opening it to 1) facilitate non-destructive, rapid detection of any contamination potentials due to piercing of the CSVC during gas extraction [7]; and 2) to aid in the Artemis sample tool development and provide data on the knife edge seal of the CSVC. This knowledge will help us connect the mechanics of the implemented design (i.e., XCT data) to the performance of the seal (i.e., data on the gas samples will tell us how well the seal preserved the volatile record of lunar samples). Both type of information will feed forward into Artemis tool and storage strategies for future samples. Results and Lessons learned: The XCT data of the CSVC and core tube within showed that the bottom Teflon cap was not pierced during gas extraction (Fig. 1c) and thus, the sample integrity remained guaranteed during piercing and subsequent gas extraction. However, the XCT scan of the top of the core (Fig. 1b) revealed that the drive tube was overfilled with lunar soil and the tool that keeps the soil constrained within the drive tube was not fully deployed. These preliminary data allowed us to implement the necessary steps to prevent loss of sample integrity, including any potential stratigraphy shifts during extrusion. Processing Apollo core 73001/2, creating an informative PE catalog, and applying new and refined tools and technologies for sample analyses are invaluable activities that will assist in circumventing any potential pitfalls, aid in the characterization of samples, and help in the assessment of how well any lunar material has been collected and preserved in the past. This will aid in designing future sample collections and curation procedures and help to prepare for future human exploration and sampling missions such as Artemis. References: [1] Schmitt H. (2017) Icarus 298, 2-33. [3] Zeigler et al. (2021) LPSC 52nd, #2632; [4] Sun et al. (2021), LPSC 52nd, #1789; [5] Parai et al. (2021), LPSC 52nd #2665; [6] Schild et al. (2021) LPSC 52nd #1888; [7] McDonald (2022) ESL 2022.

ANGSA↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The NASA Open Science Data Repository: Biomedical Data, Analysis Tools, and Informatic Collaborations

Increased biomedical risks and challenges associated with deep space missions require knowledge discovery, health countermeasures, and biomedical support capabilities. Maximally open-access and reusable data is needed by developers, scientists, and engineers to develop these systems. The NASA Open Science Data Repository (OSDR) is a maximally open access and FAIR database (ie., findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable), and meets various scientific, technical, and operational needs. It offers users and submitters the ability to upload, download, search, share, analyze, cite, and visualize data across ‘omics, physiological, phenotypic, payload, hardware, behavioral, bioimaging, video, and environmental monitoring telemetry datasets. OSDR is an expanded database, based upon the successes of NASA GeneLab. OSDR has >460 studies with datasets covering model organisms to non-NASA human astronauts. There are ~12 datasets from the Inspiration 4 (I4) mission, spanning metagenomics, comprehensive metabolic panels, clonal hematopoiesis, spatial transcriptomics, proteomics, and cytokine panels. In the interest of data privacy, two I4 datasets with raw files relating to the epitranscriptome, and a new request feature is live in OSDR (with a backend review process established) developed from industry norms. OSDR is collecting and curating biomedical human data from a new sub-orbital research flight and is open to more space life science/biomedical submissions from the international and commercial sectors. OSDR also recently began a collaboration with the European Space Agency (ESA) to collect and curate >200 terabytes of human and model organism data. The OSDR submission portal is designed to ingest and curate ~25 ‘omics and ~50 physiological-phenotypic-imaging assay data types. Tools available for OSDR users include: 1) an Environmental Data Application to compare radiation, CO2, relative humidity, temperature, and other telemetry across missions and subjects, 2) the RadLab database, a collaboration between NASA, ESA, the German and Italian Space Agencies, and the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, and 3) a Multi-study visualization tool which enables users to look across and combine ‘omics datasets. There are ~600 volunteer OSDR Analysis Working Group (AWG) members providing feedback on scientific data/metadata standards and collaborating to mine-reuse OSDR in research. OSDR/GeneLab has enabled ~60 publications reusing data as of October 2023.

space biology↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Does Collection Time Bias the Ecology of Cleanroom Air Samples?

Microbial monitoring of astromaterials collections has taken on increased importance with the return of biologically sensitive samples from the asteroids Ryugu and Bennu and the initiation of the Mars Sample Return Program. Terrestrial bacteria and fungi can alter the mineralogy and organic composition of our collections causing irreversible contamination of pristine samples and increasing the risk of false positives for life detection measurements. NASA has conducted routine microbial monitoring of its existing collections since 20181. Initial monitoring focused on surface samples collected with foam swabs. Although, airborne microbiology is often decoupled from surface microbiology in the built environment2 culture-based air sampling techniques like impactors were not compliant with existing contamination control requirements. Bringing organic rich media, gelatin or liquids into curation cleanrooms presents an unacceptable risk to pristine samples. In 2022 NASA purchased a materials complaint air sampler and began collecting air samples from the cleanrooms in addition to surface samples3. The new instrument uses an electret filter to collect samples that are suitable for cultivating organisms or for direct DNA sequencing. Preliminary DNA sequencing results appeared to indicate that longer sampling times biased the microbial community in favor of hearty, spore-forming bacteria3. We present the results of a study comparing overnight sampling (17 hours) to short (1 hour) sampling of unoccupied curation cleanrooms. The results will help us optimize our monitoring protocols and develop a more detailed inventory of the ecology of astromaterials curation cleanrooms. Methods: We analyzed 72 paired air samples from six different cleanrooms including the meteorite processing lab (ISO 7 equivalent, 16 samples), the lunar lab (ISO 6 equivalent, 10 samples), the stardust lab (ISO 5 equivalent 14 samples), the OSIRIS-REx lab (ISO 5 equivalent, 12 samples), the Hayabusa2 lab (ISO 5 equivalent, 14 samples), and the Genesis lab (ISO 4 equivalent, 6 samples). All the samples were collected with an InnovaPrep Bobcat air sampler operating at a sampling rate of 200 L/min. The sampler operates for 5 minutes out of every 20 minute period. Half of the samples were collected by filtering 3,000L (15 min. of active sampling) of air across an electret filter for one hour. The rest of the samples were collected by filtering approximately 51,000 L air across the filter overnight (~17 hours, 255 min. of active sampling). Cells were eluted from the filter using 6-7 ml of pressurized 0.15% tween 20 in PBS (phosphate buffered saline). This liquid was used to cultivate bacteria according to previously published methods1,4,5 and for DNA extraction and next generation sequencing. DNA was extracted with a Qiagen MagAttract PowerMicrobiome kit6. To identify bacteria and archaea, the 16S rRNA gene was amplified using Earth Microbiome primers for the V4 region 7. The amplified DNA was sequenced on an Illumina MiSeq using a V3 reagent kit. The resulting sequences were processed using DADA2 and QIIME2 as implemented on the EDGE bioinformatics platform8–10. Results: Only two of the 72 samples had no amplifiable DNA. Amplified DNA concentrations ranged from 2.67 – 0.272 ng/µl. The median concentration of amplified DNA for the 1 hour samples was 0.770 ± 0.368 ng/µl. The median concentration of amplified DNA for the overnight samples was 0.877 ± 0.434 ng/µl. On average the overnight samples had slightly more sequences (58,960 vs. 59,456) and ASV’s (amplicon sequence variants) (60 vs 64.5) than the one hour samples, but these differences are not statistically significant. The most abundant ASV in every sample mapped to the genus Cupravidus. ASV’s mapping to the genuses Bacillus, Schlegelella, Thermus, and Staphylococcus were also common. Discussion and Future Work: Alpha diversity statistics like Shannon Entropy and Faith Phylogenetic Diversity are used to describe the diversity of organisms in a single sample. If a longer sampling time was biasing the data, we would expect to see a change in these diversity statistics vs. sample time. However, we did not observe this in our data. The median Shannon entropy was slightly higher for the overnight samples (3.773 vs 3.611) as was the Faith Phylogenetic Diversity (4.042 vs 3.596), but both values were within a standard deviation of each other for the two sampling times (Fig. 1). It is unlikely, that the longer sampling time is introducing bias into our data. We do observe a significant decrease in diversity when comparing the air samples by lab. The Genesis lab (ISO 4 equivalent) has a lower median number of ASV’s (45.5) than the other labs (62). Median values for Shannon Entropy (3.717 vs. 3.430) and Faith Phylogenetic Diversity (3.796 vs. 3.548) are also lower for Genesis, but those values are with one standard deviation of each other for the different sampling times. This is consistent with previous culture-based results suggesting that the environment in cleanrooms tends to select for a core group of organisms capable of surviving under dry, low nutrient, conditions. The presence of the ASV’s mapping to Cupravidus and Thermus in our sequencing blanks and controls suggests that several of the most common organisms in our samples represent contaminants from the reagents used to perform the DNA extractions and sequencing. Further work is needed to identify these contaminants, remove them from our data and recalculate the diversity statistics. This is a systematic error. Therefore, we do not expect removing the sequencing contaminants to change our conclusions. Longer air sample collection times appear to result in slightly higher diversity and do not bias the results towards “hardy” bacteria like spore-formers. Based on these preliminary results we conclude that sampling at least 3,000 liters of air is sufficient to capture the microbial diversity of cleanrooms, and that air samples can also be collected overnight without negatively impacting diversity. These results allow us to be flexible when designing microbial monitoring plans so that they do not interfere with routine lab activity. References: 1. Regberg, A. B. et al. 49th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2018). 2. The United States Pharmacopeial Convention. USP General Chapter <1116> (2013). 3. Regberg, A. B., et al. 54th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2023). 4. Regberg, A. B. et al. 53rd Lunar and Planetary Science Conference ( 2022). 5. Davis, R. E.,et al. 50th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2019). 6. Qiagen. MagAttract® PowerMicrobiome® DNA/RNA EP Kit Handbook. (2018). 7. Walters, W. et al. mSystems 1, (2015). 8. Callahan, B. J. et al. Nat. Methods 13, 581–583 (2016). 9. Hall, M. & Beiko, R. G. Microbiome Analysis: Methods and Protocols113–129 (Springer, 2018). 10. Philipson, C. et al. Bio-Protoc. 7, e2622 (2017).

A. B. Regberg↗
NASA NTRS2024

2023 Cleanroom Monitoring for OSIRIS-REx

OSIRIS-REx is an asteroid sample return mission that delivered asteroid regolith from Bennu to Earth on 9/24/2023 [1]. Cleanroom monitoring of OSIRIS-REx Curation facilities has been ongoing since 2021 when construction of the OSIRIS-REx lab at Johnson Space Center (JSC) was completed [2]. The monitoring continues inside of the OSIRIS-REx lab in Houston. Monitoring was also conducted on a temporary cleanroom constructed inside a hangar at the Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR) to initially receive the Sample Return Capsule (SRC) upon its landing there. The following reports on cleanroom monitoring that has taken place in the months leading up to as well as after OSIRIS-REx return. Monitoring techniques used include particle counts, deployment of Si wafer witness plates (Balazs, Inc.) and Al foil witness plates, gas sampling (Balazs, Inc.) and microbiological monitoring. We collected particle counts at both the lab at JSC as well as the temporary cleanroom at UTTR. Particle counts were taken monthly from six locations in the lab at JSC. Particle counts were taken from seven locations at UTTR in July, August, and September. The UTTR cleanroom particle counts were taken daily in the five days leading to OSIRIS-REx return as well as consistently the day of return (every 2 minutes and 15 seconds 7:21 am- 6:27 pm) from one location inside the cleanroom. The particle counts at UTTR consistently stayed well within the ranges of its required ISO 7 equivalent classification (352,000 maximum particles/ m3 ≥ 0.5 μm). Most analysis showed that the particle counts were far below ISO 7 requirements (highest measured count was 61,484 particles/ m3 ≥ 0.5 um). but the elevated instances correlated to exterior hangar doors being open. Particle counts were reduced when keeping exterior hangar doors closed. The particle counts at JSC have stayed consistently within their ISO 5 equivalent classification (3,520 maximum particles/ m3 ≥ 0.5 um). In most instances, the counts are much better except in one instance where the count measured 13,381 particles/ m3 ≥ 0.5 um. The high spike in particle counts in the JSC lab correlated with the air handlers being shut down temporarily the previous day. The particle counts taken in the same location quickly reduced and measured 0 when taken a month later with the air handlers on. We deployed 8-inch semiconductor polished Si wafer witness plates for 24-hour periods inside of the OSIRIS-REx Curation lab at JSC (in July, August, September, and November 2023) and the cleanroom at UTTR (July and September 2023) to test for possible organic and inorganic contaminants. We also deployed these wafers inside of the OSIRIS-REx Touch-and-Go sample Acquisition Mechanism (TAGSAM) glovebox (where Bennu sample processing occurs) and desiccator (Bennu sample storage) at JSC in August 2023. These samples were all sent to Balazs for analysis via Thermal Desorption Gas Chromatography Mass Spectroscopy (TD-GC-MS) to quantify organic compounds and vapor phase decomposition inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (VPD-ICP-MS) to quantify inorganic contaminants. We collected air samples using an adsorbent tube connected to a pump for six hours (100 mL/minute) inside of both the JSC lab and the UTTR cleanroom. These samples were taken at JSC in July, August, September, November, and December and at UTTR in July and September. Additionally, a sample was taken just outside of the TAGSAM glovebox airlock door in July. These samples were sent to Balazs for analysis of volatile organics in air. Overall, the OSIRIS-REx lab at JSC and cleanroom at UTTR yielded very low organic and inorganic contaminants (similar results to Genesis lab at JSC which is ISO 4 equivalent) except for boron, which is attributed to the borosilicate glass in the fan filter units. We collected monthly surface and air samples inside the JSC lab to monitor potential microbial contamination. We report the recovery rate for each sampling event, which is defined as the number of samples exhibiting bacterial or fungal growth divided by the total number of samples collected. Since the lab was commissioned in 2021 the median recovery rate is 29%. This recovery rate is consistent with other ISO 5 equivalent labs used to curate astromaterials collections. Increases in recovery rate correspond to construction and/or extra activity in the lab. However, increases in recovery rate do not reliably correlate to increases in particle counts, which highlights the need for a dedicated microbial monitoring program for biologically sensitive collections. We sampled the temporary clean room at UTTR in July, August, and September of 2023 to monitor potential microbial contamination. The recovery rate decreased from 80% in August to 29% in September. However, in all instances, the diversity of bacteria and fungi was higher in the UTTR cleanroom than in the JSC lab. We routinely collected more than twenty different organisms from the UTTR cleanroom. In the JSC lab the median diversity is 2 organisms. Based on these results we hypothesize that microbes from UTTR could be transported back to JSC with the Bennu samples. To mitigate this risk, in September of 2023, we implemented additional cleaning procedures in the JSC lab to reduce the bioburden on surfaces that could come into direct contact with hardware used to process Bennu samples. Since adopting these additional cleaning measures, the median recovery rate has decreased to 14%. We did not observe an increase in fungal or bacterial diversity in the lab in the October sampling. We will continue to monitor this trend closely for the next several months. Supported by NASA under Award NNH09ZDA007O and Contract NNM10AA11C.

Rachel Comstock Funk↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Genesis Non-flight Implant Sample Archive

Introduction: For the past 20 years the Genesis science community has been analyzing solar wind captured in sample collectors now curated at Johnson Space Center (JSC). Non-flown flight like collector materials (non-flight) considered reference material was always allocated by the JSC Genesis team for testing experimental procedures. However, to expedite Genesis science, distribution of non-flown reference materials were also provided by, D. S. Burnett (Genesis PI, Caltech) and A. J. G. Jurewicz (ASU) who were funded to aid all Genesis PIs by providing engineering test materials archived at Caltech pre-flight as well as ion implants into these materials [1]. Implanted materials (non-flight reference, flight-like semiconductor materials, and NIST SRM glass) received from the Caltech collection during a pilot project are being used to develop an accession procedure for the purpose of making these materials available to researchers in the future. These implant samples are important because they can be utilized as measurement standards [2]. This is a work in progress and this work reports progress in documentation and imaging. The pilot program received 63 implanted reference materials with known implanted ions. Genesis Non-Flight Database: The existing non-flight material database was modified to allow for the description of implant sessions and to allow correlation of the implant information to individual specimens. An implant session has three main components: a known ion, a known dose (ion/cm2), and a known energy (keV). Procedure: Laboratory Procedure. Upon receiving non-flight analytical standards (independently calibrated implants), or implant samples (nominally calibrated implants), they will be imaged in their current containers to capture any information written before being brought into the Genesis Sample Laboratory. Documentation is provided by the donor and used for correlating the data between the implant sessions and implant samples. This information is not verified by Genesis Curation. The microscope used to image samples in the laboratory has an automated stage with a stainless-steel plate to hold samples and a camera that utilizes the software Surveyor to take photomosaic images of the implant samples. The camera attached to the microscope is a QICAM High Performance IEEE 1394 FireWire Digital CCD Camera. This setup, shown in Fig. 1, allows for photomosaics of small-scale samples with a 10x objective or 25x objective. Examples of images taken with this microscope setup are shown in Fig.2 and Fig. 3. After imaging, samples get stored in a clean fluoroware container or polypropylene vial depending on sample size for long term storage. Database Procedure. The Genesis Non-Flight Database currently allows for the addition of implant sessions. The required fields for adding an implant session are the implant session ion, the implant session dose, and the implant session energy. There are also fields for the date and vendor of the sessions as well as a field for if the session was calibrated or not. Once an implant session has been inserted into the database, additional documentation from the session can be attached. The database will automatically assign an Implant Session Number. After inserting an implant session, the implanted samples can be inserted. The fields required for an implant sample are the material of the sample and the size of the sample. The Generic name for the implant sample with be automatically generated by the database once it has been inserted. Implant sample numbers begin with 3X to distinguish from flown Genesis sample numbers. There are also fields for processors to add the location (room, cabinet, tray) and container type (fluoroware, polypropylene vial). Once an implant session and an associated sample(s) have been inserted into the database the sample can be then tied to all associated implant sessions. An implant sample can be tied to multiple implant sessions. Future work: For curation, future work consists of creating an online catalogue for implant samples as well as updating the database with more samples as we receive them. For the scientific community these implant samples have many potential uses. For Genesis research, they are directly applicable for testing and, in some cases, as analytical standards. For non-Genesis research, implants (especially calibrated implants) could be used for calibrating other, unique planetary materials [1].

C D Calva↗
DOE OSTI2019

Graph Generation with a Focusing Lexicon

Reference datasets are an essential part of developing effective data exploration tools. Many reference datasets are synthetic in nature, seeding real-world properties into generation routines. Others are laboriously curated from original source materials. This is a time-consuming process that requires significant domain expertise all along the process. This paper presents a third path: deriving a network from real-world source materials using automated tools. By properly grounding the tools in a small collection of curated documents, a larger corpus be automatically processed with greater confidence. The end system leverages human knowledge (in the initial document curation), but with much less time commitment enabled by automation. Our ultimate goal is to produce reference datasets, derived from real-world data that capture aspects salient to a specific activity in the context of all of the activities in the data-set. Our reference datasets take the form of graphs.

Chandra Shekar, Mayanka↗
DOE OSTI2022

Physics-informed graph neural networks for predicting cetane number with systematic data quality analysis

Designing alternative fuels for advanced compression ignition engines necessitates a predictive model for cetane number (CN). In this study, the physics-informed graph neural networks are introduced for a reliable CN prediction by considering molecular features pertinent to the physical properties of molecules that affect CN. The reliability of measured data is another key factor to consider for improving the predictive model. Various experimental instruments for measuring CN exist, including standard and non-standard methods. In this regard, a systematic data quality analysis was carried out for the total 630 CNs collected from literature and new measurements in this study using Advanced Fuel Ignition Delay Analyzer (AFIDA). The results from this data curation process were reflected in the model by imposing lower sample weights on the data coming from less reliable measurement techniques. This approach effectively maximized the prediction accuracy while incorporating data from all available sources. Using the sample weights decreased the mean absolute error (MAE) up to 0.8 CN units. The accuracy was also improved by introducing the CN-related physical properties (the number of hydrogen bond donors and acceptors); the test set MAE is 5.74 and 7.01 for the model with and without such properties, respectively. Investigating molecular structural effects on CN was also carried out to gain chemical insights into factors used to design new fuel candidates. The dimensionality reduction analysis of feature vectors showed a clear clustering in terms of functional groups and CN and the structural effect derived from the model was consistent with the physicochemical insights. Finally, this physics-informed model and data curation would be helpful for accurate CN prediction and inform rational fuel design.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Operational Workflow in a Sample Receiving Facility: Input from the MSR Operation Definition Team

The return of scientifically selected samples from Mars would provide a rare opportunity for investigation with the full range of the latest technology available. To take full advantage of this opportunity, it is important to plan ahead to ensure the pristine nature of the samples upon arrival within the Earth environment until scientific investigations can begin. The NASA/ESA science community-driven MSR Science Planning Group – Phase 2 (MSPG2) delivered recommendations and guidance regarding curation (1) and science (2,3) activities to be performed on the samples under containment. High-level requirements for the infrastructure were also developed by MSPG2 (4). In order to prepare infrastructure-targeted input for the ESA and NASA facility studies planned in the 2022-2023 timeframe, the MSR agency-led Operational Scenarios Definition Team (MOSDT) was assembled to conceptualize the sample operations that will inform future architecture teams. Emphasis was placed on the responsibility of MOSDT to use community-defined requirements and to represent the view of the international scientific community. The main deliverable of MOSDT was an operational workflow for a Sample Receiving Facility (SRF). Two other deliverables were produced: a report to narrate the workflow, and a list of instruments (see Hutzler et al., this conference). Activities described in the main sequence of the workflow range from engineering operations to curation to science, with the latter term being used here as the science to be done within a SRF. Side sequences (e.g. engineering inspection of hardware, head gas extraction) were also identified, and detailed when they would have a significant impact on the infrastructure of a SRF. It was necessary for the MOSDT to rely on assumptions for some steps and activities, and though these were kept to a minimum (and are described in both the report supporting the workflow and in the full presentation), in general, the assumptions and overall work were very conservative, as the impact of underestimating the scope of the SRF infrastructure was considered more detrimental than overestimating it. It is expected that future work will be able to confirm or inform these assumptions. The community was consulted during the course of the MOSDT work. This abstract’s aim is two-fold: on one hand, inform the scientific community and overall MSR stakeholders, to make the infrastructure studies and trade-off more understandable; on the other hand, to solicit feedback from a larger community audience for the next iterations planning for SRF design and activities.

Mars Sample Return↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

In-Lab Rapid Analytical Detection of Lunar Volatiles By Universal Gas Analyzer With Comparison to GC-MS System

Introduction: The curation of permanently shadowed regions (PSRs) [1] on the lunar surface is centered around studies based upon the observed volatiles from the LCROSS mission [2]. The rapid detection of important volatile gases and vapors present in planetary bodies and Astromaterials by a standalone analytical device is an area of intense research interest in our group and Planetary Exploration & Astromaterials Research Laboratory (PEARL) facility and this work is relevant to the future preparation of viable lunar simulants for testing curation efforts down the road. The groundbreaking results obtained from the LCROSS Mission [2] open the requirements for the direct detection of volatiles present in regolith materials collected from the lunar surface. The mass spectrometry of volatile chemicals is a general technique that utilizes a set of instruments that creates charged ions from a gaseous chemical species and measures the intensities vs. mass-to-charge ratio (m/z) [3]. In this context, we discuss in-lab experimental results and procedures for rapid qualitative analysis of main LCROSS volatiles (water, H2S, NH3, CO2, and CH3OH) by a Universal Gas Analyzer (UGA) instrument. Additionally, the instrument performance was evaluated by measuring the isotopic abundance ratio of atmospheric Ar-40 to Ar-36 present in room air since, argon is a relevant gas in planetary studies as it can provide an insight and reference point to isotope studies [4]. Additional, cross comparisons were attempted and made between the two instruments to develop a robust analytical technique by comparing mass spectral data for H2S headspace samples with a Trace-1310/ ISQ 7000 (ThermoFisher Scientific.) GC-MS system. Background: The benchtop UGA System is equipped with an SRS UGA 300 quadrupole mass spectrometer designed and built by Stanford Research Systems [5]. This system can be configured for several types of gaseous chemical analysis. The inlet line continuously samples gases at low flow rates (several milliliters per minute) through a capillary limiting the intake pressure making the instrument ideal for online analysis of select gases and/or room atmosphere. Moreover, in our current UGA system, a change in composition at the inlet can be detected in about 200 milliseconds and a complete spectrum is acquired (for a range of 1-100 amu) in under 45 sec with masses measured at rates up to 25 msec per point [5]. This system provides a quick upstream analytical data that we can then compare to results obtained by our GC-MS system. Sample Preparation: Small volume (2-4 mL) of analyte sample was taken in a 10 mL glass vial and sealed with a crimped cap and purged with pure Ar or N2 gas to displace air from the top. The headspace sample was scanned by the UGA instrument at analog, histogram, and pressure vs. time modes. The isotopic abundance ratio for 40Ar-to-36Ar was estimated by measuring partial pressure vs. time scans and setting the mass at 40 and 36 respectively. Results and Discussions: In this work, we have investigated the applicability of the UGA system by qualitative analysis of a series of LCROSS volatiles measured individually. Fig. 1 demonstrates a set of vertically offset spectra for the partial pressures measured as a function of mass-to-charge (m/z) ratios. The average acquisition time for each spectrum was less than a minute suggesting that the UGA system is ideal for quick analysis of geochemical volatiles. For the cross-comparison, we analyzed an H2S headspace sample by a Trace-1310/ISQ-7000 system and compared mass spectral data with previously measured UGA histogram scan data (Fig. 2). In both cases, major peak positions are the same, however, the intensities of fragment ions ([1H132S]+ and [32S]+) are higher for UGA suggesting that the fragment ionization process is stronger in UGA compared to that of GC-MS. To investigate how the integrated area under each chromatogram varies with the headspace sample volume, a set of five H2S headspace samples with increasing volumes was analyzed by the GC-MS system (Fig. 3, inset). A small volume (e.g., 200 to 1000 µL) of H2S/H2O vapor was withdrawn from a 20 mL stock sample vial containing ~5 mL of 0.4% H2S in water by a gas-tight syringe and added to another 20 mL vial filled with argon and analyzed by the GC-MS system. Finally, the UGA detector sensitivity was evaluated by calculating the atmospheric 40Ar-to-36Ar isotopic abundance ratio in room air by running a partial pressure vs. time scan with setting the atomic mass at 40, and 36. Fig. 4(a) shows a ~25 min duration “P vs. time” scan for 40Ar (plot for 36Ar is not shown). The partial pressure values (~100 points) were corrected by subtracting the corresponding background pressure value for 37Ar and utilized to calculate 40Ar-to-36Ar isotopic abundance ratios as shown by Fig. 4b. The average isotopic abundance ratio is ~306 with a 2*STDEV ~13. This abundance ratio is significantly close to the previously reported value of 298.56 [6] and the ratio obtained by our GC-MS system (303 for a UHP grade Ar sample). Conclusions: Our study strongly evidenced that the benchtop UGA system is a valuable analytical tool for the detection of major LCROSS volatiles. The rapid scanning capability, the inexpensiveness of the whole system, and impressive detection sensitivity prove its worthiness as an essential device for advanced geochemical applications. Moreover, cross comparisons with the GC-MS provide important bridges into advanced curatorial efforts into the future. References: [1] Bickel, V.T., et al. (2021) Nat Commun 12, 5607. [2] Colaprete, A., et al. (2010) Science, 330, 463-468. [3] Glavin, D. P. et al. (2012) 2012 IEEE Aerospace Conference, 1-11. [4] Willett, C. D., et al. (2022) Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 329, 119-134. [5] Operation Manual and Programming Reference. (2018) Universal gas Analyzers, Stanford Research Systems. [6] Lee, J. Y., et al. (2006) Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 70, 4507–4512. Notes: (4 figures are attached with text as shown by the attached file)

Curation↗
DOE OSTI2025

deadtrees.earth — An open-access and interactive database for centimeter-scale aerial imagery to uncover global tree mortality dynamics

Excessive tree mortality is a global concern and remains poorly understood as it is a complex phenomenon. We lack global and temporally continuous coverage on tree mortality data. Ground-based observations on tree mortality, e.g., derived from national inventories, are very sparse, and may not be standardized or spatially explicit. Earth observation data, combined with supervised machine learning, offer a promising approach to map overstory tree mortality in a consistent manner over space and time. However, global-scale machine learning requires broad training data covering a wide range of environmental settings and forest types. Low altitude observation platforms (e.g., drones or airplanes) provide a cost-effective source of training data by capturing high-resolution orthophotos of overstory tree mortality events at centimeter-scale resolution. Here, we introduce deadtrees.earth, an open-access platform hosting more than two thousand centimeter-resolution orthophotos, covering more than 1,000,000 ha, of which more than 58,000 ha are manually annotated with live/dead tree classifications. This community-sourced and rigorously curated dataset can serve as a comprehensive reference dataset to uncover tree mortality patterns from local to global scales using space-based Earth observation data and machine learning models. This will provide the basis to attribute tree mortality patterns to environmental changes or project tree mortality dynamics to the future. The open nature of deadtrees.earth, together with its curation of high-quality, spatially representative, and ecologically diverse data will continuously increase our capacity to uncover and understand tree mortality dynamics.

Citizen science↗
DOE OSTI2025

Protein Data Bank (PDB): Fifty-three years young and having a transformative impact on science and society

This review article describes the co-evolution of structural biology as a discipline and the Protein Data Bank (PDB), established in 1971 as the first open-access data resource in biology by like-minded structural scientists. As the PDB archive grew in size and scope to encompass macromolecular crystallography, NMR spectroscopy, and cryo-electron microscopy, new technologies were developed to ingest, validate, curate, store, and distribute the information. Community engagement ensured that the needs of structural biologists (data depositors) and data consumers were met. Today, the archive houses more than 230,000 experimentally determined structures of proteins, nucleic acids, and macromolecular machines and their complexes with one another and small-molecule ligands. Aggregate costs of PDB data preservation are ~1% of the cost of structure determination. The enormous impact of PDB data on basic and applied research and education across the natural and medical sciences is presented and highlighted with illustrative examples. Enablement of de novo protein structure prediction (AlphaFold2, RoseTTAfold, OpenFold, etc.) is the most widely appreciated benefit of having a corpus of rigorously validated, expertly curated 3D biostructure data.

bioinformatics↗
DOE OSTI2023

Machine Learning Prediction of the Experimental Transition Temperature of Fe(II) Spin-Crossover Complexes

Spin-crossover (SCO) complexes are materials that exhibit changes in the spin state in response to external stimuli, with potential applications in molecular electronics. It is challenging to know a priori how to design ligands to achieve the delicate balance of entropic and enthalpic contributions needed to tailor a transition temperature close to room temperature. Here, we leverage the SCO complexes from the previously curated SCO-95 data set [Vennelakanti et al. J. Chem. Phys. 159, 024120 (2023)] to train three machine learning (ML) models for transition temperature (T 1/2 ) prediction using graph-based revised autocorrelations as features. We perform feature selection using random forest-ranked recursive feature addition (RF-RFA) to identify the features essential to model transferability. Of the ML models considered, the full feature set RF and recursive feature addition RF models perform best, achieving moderate correlation to experimental T 1/2 values. We then compare ML T 1/2 predictions to those from three previously identified best-performing density functional approximations (DFAs) which accurately predict SCO behavior across SCO-95, finding that the ML models predict T 1/2 more accurately than the best-performing DFAs. In addition, we study ML model predictions for a set of 18 SCO complexes for which only estimated T 1/2 values are available. Upon excluding outliers from this set, the RF-RFA RF model shows a strong correlation to estimated T 1/2 values with a Pearson’s r of 0.82. In contrast, DFA-predicted T 1/2 values have large errors and show no correlation to estimated T 1/2 values over the same set of complexes. Overall, our study demonstrates slightly superior performance of ML models in comparison with some of the best-performing DFAs, and we expect ML models to improve further as larger data sets of SCO complexes are curated and become available for model training.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2023

Simulations of Glass Transition and Mechanical Behavior of Off-Stoichiometric Crosslinked Polymers

Here, this work explores the influence of blend composition, network architecture, and hydrogen bonding on the material properties of crosslinked epoxy networks, focusing on the glass transition temperature (T g ) and Young’s modulus (Y). We used coarse-grained molecular dynamics simulations to simulate varying compositions of stiff and flexible components in epoxy monomer blends with varying excess of curative. We find that, without hydrogen bonding, networks of any composition show a monotonically increasing T g with decreasing excess curative, consistent with theory. In contrast, we find that when hydrogen bonding is introduced, the binary blend networks show significant enhancement in T g for lightly crosslinked systems. This result contributes to an explanation of the anomalous T g behavior observed experimentally in these systems. We further find that Y is generally enhanced by hydrogen bonds, especially below T g , demonstrating that hydrogen bonding has a significant influence on mechanical properties and can allow access to other desirable dynamic behavior, especially self-healing.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2024

Automating data analysis for hydrogen/deuterium exchange mass spectrometry using data-independent acquisition methodology

We present a hydrogen/deuterium exchange workflow coupled to tandem mass spectrometry (HX-MS 2 ) that supports the acquisition of peptide fragment ions alongside their peptide precursors. The approach enables true auto-curation of HX data by mining a rich set of deuterated fragments, generated by collisional-induced dissociation (CID), to simultaneously confirm the peptide ID and authenticate MS 1 -based deuteration calculations. The high redundancy provided by the fragments supports a confidence assessment of deuterium calculations using a combinatorial strategy. The approach requires data-independent acquisition (DIA) methods that are available on most MS platforms, making the switch to HX-MS 2 straightforward. Importantly, we find that HX-DIA enables a proteomics-grade approach and wide-spread applications. Considerable time is saved through auto-curation and complex samples can now be characterized and at higher throughput. We illustrate these advantages in a drug binding analysis of the ultra-large protein kinase DNA-PKcs, isolated directly from mammalian cells.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Missing microbial eukaryotes and misleading meta-omic conclusions

Meta-omics is commonly used for large-scale analyses of microbial eukaryotes, including species or taxonomic group distribution mapping, gene catalog construction, and inference on the functional roles and activities of microbial eukaryotes in situ. Here, we explore the potential pitfalls of common approaches to taxonomic annotation of protistan meta-omic datasets. We re-analyze three environmental datasets at three levels of taxonomic hierarchy in order to illustrate the crucial importance of database completeness and curation in enabling accurate environmental interpretation. We show that taxonomic membership of sequence clusters estimates community composition more accurately than returning exact sequence labels, and overlap between clusters can address database shortcomings. Clustering approaches can be applied to diverse environments while continuing to exploit the wealth of annotation data collated in databases, and selecting and evaluating these databases is a critical part of correctly annotating protistan taxonomy in environmental datasets. We argue that ongoing curation of genetic resources is crucial in accurately annotating protists in in situ meta-omic datasets. Moreover, we propose that precise taxonomic annotation of meta-omic data is a clustering problem rather than a feasible alignment problem.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗