| Literature DB >> 29862836 |
Marc Neveu1,2, Lindsay E Hays2,3, Mary A Voytek2, Michael H New2, Mitchell D Schulte2.
Abstract
We describe the history and features of the Ladder of Life Detection, a tool intended to guide the design of investigations to detect microbial life within the practical constraints of robotic space missions. To build the Ladder, we have drawn from lessons learned from previous attempts at detecting life and derived criteria for a measurement (or suite of measurements) to constitute convincing evidence for indigenous life. We summarize features of life as we know it, how specific they are to life, and how they can be measured, and sort these features in a general sense based on their likelihood of indicating life. Because indigenous life is the hypothesis of last resort in interpreting life-detection measurements, we propose a small but expandable set of decision rules determining whether the abiotic hypothesis is disproved. In light of these rules, we evaluate past and upcoming attempts at life detection. The Ladder of Life Detection is not intended to endorse specific biosignatures or instruments for life-detection measurements, and is by no means a definitive, final product. It is intended as a starting point to stimulate discussion, debate, and further research on the characteristics of life, what constitutes a biosignature, and the means to measure them.Entities:
Keywords: Biomarkers; Biosignatures; Life detection; Life-detection instruments
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29862836 PMCID: PMC6211372 DOI: 10.1089/ast.2017.1773
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Astrobiology ISSN: 1557-8070 Impact factor: 4.335
Criteria for a Claim of Life Detection to Convince a Majority of the Scientific Community
The Ladder of Life Detection
Rows indicate features of life; columns indicate criteria of Table 1. Features highlighted in green indicate evidence for extant life. Edits to the Ladder are encouraged; see text.

(a) Any compound for which biology is a source (dark green) or sink (light green) may also have abiotic sources (dark blue) and sinks (light blue). This complicates life detection. (b) This complication is overcome by meeting the criteria of survivability (biological sources > abiotic sinks or biological sinks > abiotic sources) and reliability (biological sources > abiotic sources or biological sinks > abiotic sinks). Examples are provided for each case.
Application of the Decision Rules of Tables 3 and 4 to Past Measurements that Led to the Claim of Life Detection
Klein (1978). bSchopf (1993). cSagan et al. (1993). dMcKay et al. (1996). eSteele et al. (1998). fBada et al. (1998). gMartel et al. (2012). hSummons et al. (1999). iFrench et al. (2015). jBrocks et al. (2003a, 2003b). kPriscu et al. (1999). lChristner et al. (2001). mChristner et al. (2006). nKarl et al. (1999). oBulat et al. (2004). pFormisano et al. (2004), Krasnopolsky et al. (2004), Mumma et al. (2009).
AFM = atomic force microscopy. GC-IRMS = gas chromatography–isotope ratio mass spectrometry. IC = ion chromatography. IRMS = isotope ratio mass spectrometry. OM = optical microscopy.

In a binary framework, if we attribute a life-detection result of 1 to case A (“the presence of complex organics and large enantiomeric excesses together in a sample cannot be achieved abiotically”), then cases B and C, with additional evidence for life, would also have a result of 1. Therefore, there would be no need to consider each case individually: case A would be a “decision rule” determining the outcome of cases B, C, and all others with complex organics and a large enantiomeric excess. In a probabilistic framework, the result of each measurement matters.
Description of Decision Rules for Rejecting Abiotic Hypotheses (Criterion #8)
| A | Evidence for |
| B | Evidence for a |
| C | Evidence for |
| D | Evidence for both |
| E | Evidence for both |
| F | Evidence for both a |
| G | Evidence for both a |
| H | Evidence for both |
| I | Without evidence for |
| J | Without evidence for |
| K | Without evidence for either |
Example Set of Decision Rules for Rejecting Abiotic Hypotheses (Criterion #8)
The table is read by columns.
Application of the Simplistic Decision Rules of Tables 3 and 4 to Future Measurements That May Lead to a Claim of Life Detection
Outcomes most indicative of life given a planned payload are indicated. Any sample return would have access to the entire suite of techniques used in previous life-detection investigations (Section 5).
Goetz et al. (2016), Goesmann et al. (2017). bHand et al. (2017). cLunine et al. (2015), Reh et al. (2016). dSpencer and Niebur (2010). eExcept perhaps for organic compounds such as PAHs.