Yeast-driven biomanufacturing in space: synergizing cellular agriculture for sustainable extraterrestrial habitats

Posted on
yeast-driven-biomanufacturing-in-space:-synergizing-cellular-agriculture-for-sustainable-extraterrestrial-habitats
Yeast-driven biomanufacturing in space: synergizing cellular agriculture for sustainable extraterrestrial habitats

References

  1. Pandith, J. A., Neekhra, S., Ahmad, S. & Sheikh, R. A. Recent developments in space food for exploration missions: a review. Life Sci. Space Res. 36, 123–134, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lssr.2022.09.007 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Dakkumadugula, A. et al. Space nutrition and the biochemical changes caused in Astronauts Health due to space flight: a review. Food Chem. X 20, 100875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fochx.2023.100875 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kim, H. W. & Rhee, M. S. Space food and bacterial infections: realities of the risk and role of science. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 106, 275–287, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2020.10.023 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bychkov, A., Reshetnikova, P., Bychkova, E., Podgorbunskikh, E. & Koptev, V. The current state and future trends of space nutrition from a perspective of astronauts’ physiology. Int. J. Gastronomy Food Sci. 24, 100324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2021.100324 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Douglas, G. L., Zwart, S. R. & Smith, S. M. Space food for thought: challenges and considerations for food and nutrition on exploration missions. J. Nutr. 150, 2242–2244, https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/nxaa188 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jiang, J., Min, Z., Bhesh, B. & Cao, P. Current processing and packing technology for space foods: a review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 60, 3573–3588, https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2019.1700348 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kumar, L. & Gaikwad, K. K. Advanced food packaging systems for space exploration missions. Life Sci. Space Res. 37, 7–14, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lssr.2023.01.005 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gordon, G. in AIAA SPACE 2007 Conference & Exposition AIAA SPACE Forum (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2007).

  9. Zwart, S. R., Kloeris, V. L., Perchonok, M. H., Braby, L. & Smith, S. M. Assessment of nutrient stability in foods from the space food system after long-duration spaceflight on the ISS. J. Food Sci. 74, H209–H217, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2009.01265.x (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Watkins, P. et al. Long term food stability for extended space missions: a review. Life Sci. Space Res. 32, 79–95, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lssr.2021.12.003 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cooper, M., Perchonok, M. & Douglas, G. L. Initial assessment of the nutritional quality of the space food system over three years of ambient storage. npj Microgravity 3, 17. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41526-017-0022-z (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Taylor, A. J. et al. Factors affecting flavor perception in space: Does the spacecraft environment influence food intake by astronauts?. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 19, 3439–3475, https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12633 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Douglas, G. L., Bell, S. T., Roma, P. G., Oswald, T. & Young, M. Food acceptability and selection by astronauts on International Space Station missions informs strategies and risks for deep space exploration. Front. Psychol. 16, 2025 (2025).

  14. Obrist, M., Tu, Y., Yao, L. & Velasco, C. Space food experiences: designing passenger’s eating experiences for future space travel scenarios. Front. Comput. Sci. 1, 2019 (2019).

  15. Dupuis, J. H., Cheung, L. K. Y., Newman, L., Dee, D. R. & Yada, R. Y. Precision cellular agriculture: The future role of recombinantly expressed protein as food. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 22, 882–912, https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.13094 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Guan, X. et al. From lab to industry: technologies and challenges for scaling up bioprocesses in cell-based food production. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 161, 105040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2025.105040 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  17. García Martínez, J. B., Behr, J. & Denkenberger, D. C. Food without agriculture: Food from CO2, biomass and hydrocarbons to secure humanity’s food supply against global catastrophe. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 150, 104609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2024.104609 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Segal-Kischinevzky, C. et al. Yeasts inhabiting extreme environments and their biotechnological applications. Microorganisms 10, 794 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Dagariya, S., Bhatankar, J., Dakal, T. C., Gadi, B. R. & Giudici, P. Metabolic and evolutionary engineering of food yeasts. Processes 13 (2025).

  20. Rainha, J., Rodrigues, J. L. & Rodrigues, L. R. CRISPR-Cas9: a powerful tool to efficiently engineer Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Life 11, 13 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Thak, E. J., Yoo, S. J., Moon, H. Y. & Kang, H. A. Yeast synthetic biology for designed cell factories producing secretory recombinant proteins. FEMS Yeast Res. 20, foaa009. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsyr/foaa009 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Cao, C., Gao, J., Zhu, B. & Zhou, Y. J. Engineering yeast for bio-production of food ingredients. Syst. Microbiol. Biomanufacturing 3, 2–11, https://doi.org/10.1007/s43393-022-00148-x (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Jach, M. E., Serefko, A., Ziaja, M. & Kieliszek, M. Yeast protein as an easily accessible food source. Metabolites 12, 63 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Naranjo-Ortiz, M. A. & Gabaldón, T. Fungal evolution: cellular, genomic and metabolic complexity. Biol. Rev. 95, 1198–1232, https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12605 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Patterson, R., Rogiewicz, A., Kiarie, E. G. & Slominski, B. A. Yeast derivatives as a source of bioactive components in animal nutrition: a brief review. Front. Veterinary Sci. 9, 2022 (2023).

  26. Ellena, V., Sauer, M. & Steiger, M. G. The fungal sexual revolution continues: discovery of sexual development in members of the genus Aspergillus and its consequences. Fungal Biol. Biotechnol. 7, 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40694-020-00107-y (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Fukuda, N. Crossbreeding of yeasts domesticated for fermentation: infertility challenges. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 21, 7985 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Boekhout, T. et al. Trends in yeast diversity discovery. Fungal Divers. 114, 491–537, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-021-00494-6 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Yao, Z., Wang, Q. & Dai, Z. Recent advances in directed yeast genome evolution. J. Fungi 8, 635 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Werten, M. W. T., Eggink, G., Cohen Stuart, M. A. & de Wolf, F. A. Production of protein-based polymers in Pichia pastoris. Biotechnol. Adv. 37, 642–666, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2019.03.012 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Yook, S. & Alper, H. S. Recent advances in genetic engineering and chemical production in yeast species. FEMS Yeast Res. 25, foaf009. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsyr/foaf009 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Krause, D. J. The evolution of anaerobic growth in Saccharomycotina yeasts. Yeast 40, 395–400, https://doi.org/10.1002/yea.3890 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Antunes, M., Mota, M. N. & Sá-Correia, I. Cell envelope and stress-responsive pathways underlie an evolved oleaginous Rhodotorula toruloides strain multi-stress tolerance. Biotechnol. Biofuels Bioprod. 17, 71, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-024-02518-0 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Pidkurhanna, O. H., Zelena, L. B. & Shulha, S. M. Creation of heme and hemoglobin producers based on microorganisms. Cytol. Genet. 58, 300–311, https://doi.org/10.3103/S009545272404008X (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Xing, Y., Gao, S., Zhang, X. & Zang, J. Dietary heme-containing proteins: structures, applications, and challenges. Foods 11, 3594 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Knychala, M. M., Boing, L. A., Ienczak, J. L., Trichez, D. & Stambuk, B. U. Precision fermentation as an alternative to animal protein, a review. Fermentation 10 (2024).

  37. Husnik, J. I. et al. Metabolic engineering of malolactic wine yeast. Metab. Eng. 8, 315–323, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymben.2006.02.003 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Sharif, M. et al. Single cell protein: sources, mechanism of production, nutritional value and its uses in aquaculture nutrition. Aquaculture 531, 735885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735885 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Guo, J. et al. Using high protein distiller’s dried grain product to replace corn protein concentrate and fishmeal in practical diets for the Pacific white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei. J. World Aquac. Soc. 50, 983–992, https://doi.org/10.1111/jwas.12606 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Guo, J., Qiu, X., Salze, G. & Davis, D. A. Use of high-protein brewer’s yeast products in practical diets for the Pacific white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei. Aquacult. Nutr. 25, 680–690, https://doi.org/10.1111/anu.12889 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Pérez-Torrado, R. et al. Yeast biomass, an optimised product with myriad applications in the food industry. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 46, 167–175, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2015.10.008 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Hilgendorf, K., Wang, Y., Miller, M. J. & Jin, Y.-S. Precision fermentation for improving the quality, flavor, safety, and sustainability of foods. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 86, 103084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2024.103084 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Liu, J.-M., Chen, L., Jensen, P. R. & Solem, C. Food grade microbial synthesis of the butter aroma compound butanedione using engineered and non-engineered Lactococcus lactis. Metab. Eng. 67, 443–452, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymben.2021.08.006 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Chai, K. F., Ng, K. R., Samarasiri, M. & Chen, W. N. Precision fermentation to advance fungal food fermentations. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 47, 100881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2022.100881 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Singh, N. & Gaur, S. in Fungi in Sustainable Food Production (eds X Dai, M Sharma, & J Chen) 27-37 (Springer International Publishing, 2021).

  46. Cao, X. et al. Evaluation of the nutritional quality of yeast protein in comparison to animal and plant proteins using growing rats and INFOGEST model. Food Chem. 463, 141178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2024.141178 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Ting, T.-Y., Li, Y., Bunawan, H., Ramzi, A. B. & Goh, H.-H. Current advancements in systems and synthetic biology studies of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 135, 259–265, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiosc.2023.01.010 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Vickers, C. E., Williams, T. C., Peng, B. & Cherry, J. Recent advances in synthetic biology for engineering isoprenoid production in yeast. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 40, 47–56, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2017.05.017 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Ullah, N., Shahzad, K. & Wang, M. The role of metabolic engineering technologies for the production of fatty acids in yeast. Biology 10, 632 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Diao, L. & Chen, K. C. Local ancestry corrects for population structure in Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome-wide association studies. Genetics 192, 1503–1511, https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.112.144790 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Peter, J., Friedrich, A., Liti, G. & Schacherer, J. Extensive simulations assess the performance of genome-wide association mapping in various Saccharomyces cerevisiae subpopulations. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 377, 20200514. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0514 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Averesch, N. J. H. et al. Microbial biomanufacturing for space-exploration—what to take and when to make. Nat. Commun. 14, 2311. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-37910-1 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Coblentz, M. et al. Food fermentation in space: opportunities and challenges. iScience 28, 112189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2025.112189 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Tang, H., Rising, H. H., Majji, M. & Brown, R. D. Long-term space nutrition: a scoping review. Nutrients 14, 194 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Ball, N. et al. BioNutrients-2: Improvements to the BioNutrients-1 nutrient production system. 50th International Conference on Environmental Systems(2021)

  56. Ball, N. et al. BioNutrients-1: Development of an on-demand nutrient production system for long-duration missions. 2020 International Conference on Environmental Systems(2020)

  57. Sweet, P. et al. Bionutrients-1: Utilizing Genomics and Transcriptomics to Assess the Reliability of Microorganisms for In Situ Nutrient Production on Long Duration Missions(2025)

  58. Ball, N. et al. Bionutrients: Microbial Production of on-Demand Nutrients on the International Space Station (2023).

  59. Ma, J. et al. Yeast proteins: the novel and sustainable alternative protein in food applications. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 135, 190–201, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2023.04.003 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Jach, M. E. & Malm, A. Yarrowia lipolytica as an alternative and valuable source of nutritional and bioactive compounds for humans. Molecules 27, 2300 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Groenewald, M. et al. Yarrowia lipolytica: Safety assessment of an oleaginous yeast with a great industrial potential. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 40, 187–206, https://doi.org/10.3109/1040841X.2013.770386 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Patsios, S. I., Dedousi, A., Sossidou, E. Ν. & Zdragas, A. Sustainable animal feed protein through the cultivation of Yarrowia lipolytica on agro-industrial wastes and by-products. Sustainability 12 (2020).

  63. Kurcz, A., Błażejak, S., Kot, A. M., Bzducha-Wróbel, A. & Kieliszek, M. Application of industrial wastes for the production of microbial single-cell protein by fodder yeast Candida utilis. Waste Biomass. Valoriz. 9, 57–64, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-016-9782-z (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Czech, A., Smolczyk, A., Ognik, K. & Kiesz, M. Nutritional value of yarrowia lipolytica yeast and its effect on growth performance indicators n piglets. Ann. Anim. Sci. 16, 1091–1100, https://doi.org/10.1515/aoas-2016-0034 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Paulino, B. N. et al. Biotechnological production of non-volatile flavor compounds. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 41, 26–35, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2021.02.003 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Al-Mohizea, A. M., Ahmed, M. O., Al-jenoobi, F. I., Mahrous, G. M. & Abdel-Rahman, A. A. Formulation and evaluation of dried yeast tablets using different techniques. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 67, 253–259, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpb.2006.12.011 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Richter, J. et al. Clinical trials of yeast-derived β-(1,3) glucan in children: effects on innate immunity. Annals of Translational Medicine; Vol 2, No 2 (February 27, 2014): Annals of Translational Medicine (Beta-glucan) (2014).

  68. Mo, X. et al. Insoluble yeast β-glucan attenuates high-fat diet-induced obesity by regulating gut microbiota and its metabolites. Carbohydr. Polym. 281, 119046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2021.119046 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Xu, M. et al. Yeast β-glucan alleviates cognitive deficit by regulating gut microbiota and metabolites in Aβ1–42-induced AD-like mice. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 161, 258–270, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.05.180 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  70. Li, X. et al. From model organism to pharmaceutical powerhouse: innovative applications of yeast in modern drug research. Biocell 49, 813–832, https://doi.org/10.32604/biocell.2025.062124 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  71. Soutter, F. et al. A novel whole yeast-based subunit oral vaccine against Eimeria tenella in chickens. Front. Immunol. 13, https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2022.809711 (2022).

  72. Goh, S. et al. Development of a potential yeast-based vaccine platform for Theileria parva infection in cattle. Front. Immunol. 12, https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2021.674484 (2021).

  73. Lang, Q. et al. Novel and efficient yeast-based strategies for subunit vaccine delivery against COVID-19. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 294, 139254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.139254 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  74. Kulagina, N. et al. Yeasts as biopharmaceutical production platforms. Front. Fungal Biol. ume 2, 2021 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  75. Kiflmariam, M. G., Yang, H. & Zhang, Z. Gene delivery to dendritic cells by orally administered recombinant Saccharomyces cerevisiae in mice. Vaccine 31, 1360–1363, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.11.048 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  76. Nislow, C. et al. Genes required for survival in microgravity revealed by genome-wide yeast deletion collections cultured during spaceflight. BioMed. Res. Int. 2015, 976458. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/976458 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  77. Hammond, T. G. et al. Physical forces modulate oxidative status and stress defense meditated metabolic adaptation of yeast colonies: spaceflight and microgravity simulations. MiST 30, 195–208, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12217-017-9588-z (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  78. Zea, L. et al. Experiment verification test of the Artemis I ‘Deep Space Radiation Genomics’ experiment. AcAau 198, 702–706, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2022.06.018 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  79. Gaikani, H. K., Stolar, M., Kriti, D., Nislow, C. & Giaever, G. From beer to breadboards: yeast as a force for biological innovation. Genome Biol. 25, 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-023-03156-9 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  80. Myers, J. Basic remarks on the use of plants as biological gas exchangers in a closed system. J. Aviat. Med. 25, 407–411 (1954).

    Google Scholar 

  81. Liu, H., Yao, Z., Fu, Y. & Feng, J. Review of research into bioregenerative life support system(s) which can support humans living in space. Life Sci. Space Res. 31, 113–120, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lssr.2021.09.003 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  82. Fahrion, J., Mastroleo, F., Dussap, C.-G. & Leys, N. Use of photobioreactors in regenerative life support systems for human space exploration. Front. Microbiol. 12, 2021 (2021).

  83. Guo, S. S., Mao, R. X., Zhang, L. L., Tang, Y. K. & Li, Y. H. Progress and prospect of research on controlled ecological life support technique. REACH 6, 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reach.2017.06.002 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  84. Yang, Z. et al. Metagenomic insights into the regulatory effects of microbial community on the formation of biogenic amines and volatile flavor components during the brewing of Hongqu rice wine. Foods 12, 3075 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  85. Shan, G. et al. Dual sensor measurement shows that temperature outperforms pH as an early sign of aerobic deterioration in maize silage. Sci. Rep. 11, 8686. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-88082-1 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  86. Ladha, J. K. et al. Biological nitrogen fixation and prospects for ecological intensification in cereal-based cropping systems. Field Crops Res. 283, 108541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2022.108541 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  87. Zhang, J., Li, Y. & Chen, X. Microbial CO2 capture, conversion, and utilization: towards sustainable biomanufacturing. Sci. Bullet. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scib.2025.09.053 (2025).

  88. Gassler, T. et al. The industrial yeast Pichia pastoris is converted from a heterotroph into an autotroph capable of growth on CO2. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 210–216, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0363-0 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  89. Tang, Y.-Q. et al. Ethanol production from kitchen waste using the flocculating yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain KF-7. Biomass. Bioenergy 32, 1037–1045, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.01.027 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  90. Cavallo, E., Charreau, H., Cerrutti, P. & Foresti, M. L. Yarrowia lipolytica: a model yeast for citric acid production. FEMS Yeast Res. 17, fox084, https://doi.org/10.1093/femsyr/fox084 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  91. Li, Z., Qiao, K., Liu, N. & Stephanopoulos, G. Engineering Yarrowia lipolytica for poly-3-hydroxybutyrate production. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 44, 605–612, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10295-016-1864-1 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  92. Liu, X. et al. Development and flight-testing of modular autonomous cultivation systems for biological plastics upcycling aboard the ISS. npj Microgravity 11, 23. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41526-025-00463-2 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  93. Cestellos-Blanco, S. et al. Production of PHB From CO2-derived acetate with minimal processing assessed for space biomanufacturing. Front. Microbiol. 12, 2021 (2021).

  94. Poughon, L. et al. Limnospira indica PCC8005 growth in photobioreactor: model and simulation of the ISS and ground experiments. Life Sci. Space Res. 25, 53–65, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lssr.2020.03.002 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  95. Garcia-Gragera, D. et al. Integration of nitrifying, photosynthetic and animal compartments at the MELiSSA pilot plant. Front. Astronomy Space Sci. 8, 2021 (2021).

  96. Willaert, G. The growth behavior of the model eukaryotic yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae in microgravity. Curr. Biotechnol. 2, 226–234, https://doi.org/10.2174/22115501113029990023 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  97. Crespo José, L. & Hall Michael, N. Elucidating TOR Signaling and Rapamycin Action: Lessons from Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 66, 579–591, https://doi.org/10.1128/mmbr.66.4.579-591.2002 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  98. Alberghina, L. et al. Cell growth and cell cycle in Saccharomyces cerevisiae: Basic regulatory design and protein–protein interaction network. Biotechnol. Adv. 30, 52–72, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2011.07.010 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  99. Walther, I., Bechler, B., Müller, O., Hunzinger, E. & Cogoli, A. Cultivation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in a bioreactor in microgravity. J. Biotechnol. 47, 113–127, https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1656(96)01375-2 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  100. Purevdorj-Gage, B., Sheehan, K. B. & Hyman, L. E. Effects of low-shear modeled microgravity on cell function, gene expression, and phenotype in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 72, 4569–4575 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  101. Liu, H.-Z., Wang, Q., Liu, X.-Y. & Tan, S.-S. Effects of spaceflight on polysaccharides of Saccharomyces cerevisiae cell wall. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 81, 543–550, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-008-1692-y (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  102. Van Mulders, S. E. et al. The influence of microgravity on invasive growth in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. AsBio 11, 45–55 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  103. Yi, Z.-C. et al. The postmitotic Saccharomyces cerevisiae after spaceflight showed higher viability. AdSpR 47, 2049–2057, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2011.02.006 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  104. Johanson, K. et al. Haploid deletion strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae that determine survival during space flight. AcAau 60, 460–471, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2006.09.011 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  105. Coleman, C. B. et al. Novel Sfp1 transcriptional regulation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae gene expression changes during spaceflight. AsBio 8, 1071–1078 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  106. Bradamante, S. et al. Oxidative stress and alterations in actin cytoskeleton trigger glutathione efflux in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1803, 1376–1385, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamcr.2010.07.007 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  107. Bijlani, S. et al. Genomic characterization of the titan-like cell producing Naganishia Tulchinskyi, the first novel eukaryote isolated from the International Space Station. J. Fungi 8, 165 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  108. Sheehan, K. B., McInnerney, K., Purevdorj-Gage, B., Altenburg, S. D. & Hyman, L. E. Yeast genomic expression patterns in response to low-shear modeled microgravity. BMC Genomics 8, 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-8-3 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  109. Nemoto, S., Ohnuki, S., Abe, F. & Ohya, Y. A.-O. Simulated microgravity triggers characteristic morphology and stress response in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast 36, 85–97 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  110. Fukuda, A. P. M. et al. Simulated microgravity accelerates aging in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Life Sci. Space Res. 28, 32–40, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lssr.2020.12.003 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  111. Salavatifar, M. & Khosravi-Darani, K. Investigation of the simulated microgravity impact on heavy metal biosorption by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Food Sci. Nutr. 12, 3642–3652, https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.4034 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  112. Yang, J.-Q. et al. The effects of microgravity on the digestive system and the new insights it brings to the life sciences. Life Sci. Space Res. 27, 74–82, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lssr.2020.07.009 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  113. Nickerson, C. heryl et al. Microbiology of human spaceflight: microbial responses to mechanical forces that impact health and habitat sustainability. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 88, e00144–00123, https://doi.org/10.1128/mmbr.00144-23 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  114. Shi, Z. et al. Reprogramming yeast metabolism for customized starch-rich micro-grain through low-carbon microbial manufacturing. Nat. Commun. 16, 2784. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-58067-z (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  115. Zheng, T. et al. Upcycling CO2 into energy-rich long-chain compounds via electrochemical and metabolic engineering. Nat. Catal. 5, 388–396, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41929-022-00775-6 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  116. Gao, R. et al. The potential of converting carbon dioxide to food compounds via asymmetric catalysis. Nanoscale Adv. 5, 2865–2872, https://doi.org/10.1039/D3NA00178D (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  117. Tang, H. et al. Metabolic engineering of yeast for the production of carbohydrate-derived foods and chemicals from C1–3 molecules. Nat. Catal. 7, 21–34, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41929-023-01063-7 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  118. Zhan, C. et al. Reprogramming methanol utilization pathways to convert Saccharomyces cerevisiae to a synthetic methylotroph. Nat. Catal. 6, 435–450, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41929-023-00957-w (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  119. Yu, T. et al. Reprogramming Yeast Metabolism from Alcoholic Fermentation to Lipogenesis. Cell 174, 1549–1558.e1514, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.07.013 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  120. Flores, P., McBride, S. A., Galazka, J. M., Varanasi, K. K. & Zea, L. Biofilm formation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in spaceflight is minimized on lubricant impregnated surfaces. npj Microgravity 9, 66. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41526-023-00316-w (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  121. Marra, D., Ferraro, R. & Caserta, S. Biofilm contamination in confined space stations: reduction, coexistence or an opportunity? Front. Mater. 11, 2024 (2024).

  122. Chi, Y., Wang, X., Li, F., Zhang, Z. & Tan, P. Aerospace technology improves fermentation potential of microorganisms. Front. Microbiol. 13, 2022 (2022).

  123. Berliner, A. J. et al. Space bioprocess engineering on the horizon. Commun. Eng. 1, 13, https://doi.org/10.1038/s44172-022-00012-9 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  124. Htoo, N. Y. M. et al. Bioactive properties of protein hydrolysate from Arthrospira (Spirulina) platensis: a review. Appl. Food Res. 5, 101245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afres.2025.101245 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  125. Likai, A., Papazi, A. & Kotzabasis, K. Resilience of Chlorella vulgaris to simulated atmospheric gas compositions of mars, jupiter, and titan. Life 15, 117 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  126. Wang, B. et al. Survival of desert algae Chlorella exposed to Mars-like near space environment. Life Sci. Space Res. 29, 22–29, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lssr.2021.02.003 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  127. Zhu, J. Mammalian cell protein expression for biopharmaceutical production. Biotechnol. Adv. 30, 1158–1170, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2011.08.022 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  128. Manna, D. & Ghosh, R. Effect of radiofrequency radiation in cultured mammalian cells: A review. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 35, 265–301, https://doi.org/10.3109/15368378.2015.1092158 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  129. Thiel, C. S. et al. Rapid adaptation to microgravity in mammalian macrophage cells. Sci. Rep. 7, 43. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-00119-6 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  130. Ruden, D. M. et al. Effects of gravity, microgravity or microgravity simulation on early mammalian development. Stem Cells Dev. 27, 1230–1236, https://doi.org/10.1089/scd.2018.0024 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  131. Mohammed, N. B. et al. Production of biopharmaceuticals in E. coli: current scenario and future perspectives. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 25, 953–962, https://doi.org/10.4014/jmb.1412.12079 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  132. Overton, T. W. Recombinant protein production in bacterial hosts. Drug Discov. Today 19, 590–601, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2013.11.008 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  133. Zhang, X., Al-Dossary, A., Hussain, M., Setlow, P. & Li, J. Applications of Bacillus subtilis spores in biotechnology and advanced materials. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 86, e01096–01020, https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01096-20 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  134. Vallota-Eastman, A. et al. Bacillus subtilis engineered for aerospace medicine: a platform for on-demand production of pharmaceutical peptides. Front. Space Technol. 4, 2023 (2023).

Download references