Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-7zcd7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T00:59:31.631Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On biosignatures for Mars

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 November 2021

Frances Westall*
Affiliation:
CNRS-Centre de Biophysique Moléculaire, Orléans, France
Keyron Hickman-Lewis
Affiliation:
CNRS-Centre de Biophysique Moléculaire, Orléans, France University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy Natural History Museum, London, UK
Barbara Cavalazzi
Affiliation:
CNRS-Centre de Biophysique Moléculaire, Orléans, France University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy University of Johannesburgh, Johannesburgh, South Africa
Frédéric Foucher
Affiliation:
CNRS-Centre de Biophysique Moléculaire, Orléans, France
Laura Clodoré
Affiliation:
CNRS-Centre de Biophysique Moléculaire, Orléans, France
Jorge L. Vago
Affiliation:
European Space Agency ESTEC, Noordwijk, The Netherlands
*
Author for correspondence: Frances Westall, E-mail: frances.westall@cnrs-orleans.fr
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this work, we address the difficulty of reliably identifying traces of life on Mars. Several independent lines of evidence are required to build a compelling body of proof. In particular, we underline the importance of correctly interpreting the geological and mineralogical context of the sites to be explored for the presence of biosignatures. We use as examples to illustrate this, ALH84001 (where knowledge of the geological context was very limited) and other terrestrial deposits, for which this could be properly established. We also discuss promising locations and formations to be explored by ongoing and future rover missions, including Oxia Planum, which, dated at 4.0 Ga, is the most ancient Mars location targeted for investigation yet.

Information

Type
Review Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Characteristics of the ALH84001 meteorite and its interpreted biosignatures. (a) Pyroxenite, similar to the parent rock of the meteorite (at ARC Centre of Excellence for Core to Crust Fluid Systems). (b) The ALH84001 meteorite (NASA). (c) Rosettes of Fe carbonate (orange), Mg carbonate (white) and magnetite between the two (black) (NASA). (d) Globular-shaped carbonate structures interpreted to be nanobacteria (Gibson et al., 2001; Elsevier, permission). (e) A tiny magnetite nanocrystal from the ALH84001 meteorite (Gibson et al., 2001; Elsevier, permission). (f) Structure of phenanthrene, one of the organic compounds found in the meteorite (Wikipedia).

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Potential subsurface habitats on Mars (Onstott et al., 2019; Liebert, permission).

Figure 2

Fig. 3. (a) Calcified bacteria, SEM micrograph (Brunelli et al., 2012; SAGE journals, permission). (b) Silicified bacteria, TEM micrograph of experimental fossilisation (Westall et al., 1995; The Palaeontological Association, permission). (c) Fossilized microorganism with a thick silica crust (black arrow) and the mould of a microorganism outlined by phyllosilicates (white arrow), TEM micrograph of experimental fossilisation (Westall et al., 1995; The Palaeontological Association, permission). (d) 1 Ga old eukaryote cell preserved by external Fe clays (c) and internal K clays (d) (Wacey et al., 2014; Sci. Rep., permission). (e) Embedding of gypsum crystals on the outside and inside of an experimentally fossilized microorganism (Yersinia), TEM micrograph (Gaboyer et al., 2017; Sci. Rep., permission). (f) Algal cells embedded in a modern halite crystal (left) and in a 150 Ka halite crystal (Sankaranarayanan et al., 2011; Open Commons, permission).

Figure 3

Fig. 4. (a) Cold seeps from the Arctic (Williscroft et al., 2017; GSA, permission). (b) Moulds of rod-shaped microbes in microbially-precipitated carbonate from a limestone cave (Cacchio et al., 2003; Taylor and Francis, permission).

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Possible carbon (and carbonate) cycle at Gale crater (Franz et al., 2020; Nature, permission).

Figure 5

Fig. 6. (a) High-resolution image of Home Plate from orbit (Tao et al., 2021). (b) Comparison of the Home Plate silica deposits in Gusev Crater, Mars (left), with the El Tatio hot spring deposits in the Atacama (right); field views above, details of the silica spicules below (Ruff and Farmer, 2016).

Supplementary material: File

Westall et al. supplementary material

Westall et al. supplementary material

Download Westall et al. supplementary material(File)
File 2.4 MB