 much for the introduction and also for the invitation. It's a pleasure and also an honor to be participating in this series after so many great researchers that I have been reading during my PhD. As you introduced, I will have a presentation maybe a bit different from the previous ones because we'll be more focusing in some applications. But I hope this will be also interesting for the people working with the techniques and to see a slightly different type of research that we are doing using coherent life-action imaging. So maybe I would just take the pointer. So what I represent here is part of the work that I developed during my PhD in the Brazilian Syncroton. So I also let here the affiliation to the Brazilian Syncroton and part is also of my project currently in the University of Grenoble. Well, so since I guess this topic is new for most of the audience, I would like to take some time to give you a bit of the context of this research, which is a research that started focus on astrobiology and paleontology. So astrobiology is a field that is concerned to understand the origin, evolution and the distribution of life in the universe. But so far, well, 6th of May 2021, the only place that we have find life so far is Earth. So to be able to understand how to look for life in other places and what types of life that could exist, we need to focus also in the study of the early life in our planet. So here we have a schematics of the time scale, the geological time scale of Earth. We have this planet that was formed about 4.6 billion years ago. Just after that, we had the formation of the moon. And not much after we started to have the first records, at least we expect to have had the first microorganisms in habit in our planet. So before this period, we had this period of heavy bombardment of meteorites and possibly if life emerged before this, it was sterilized several times. So as soon as this late heavy bombardment finished, we believed that life could already flourish in our planet. But we don't have any rock from this period, which is called the Hadian. All these rocks were recycled and lost. So if there were life here, we cannot know. But we have some records of life from this, it's not working my pointer, yeah. So about 3.5 billion years ago, we have some traces of life already that are records of photosynthetic microorganisms. Since they are photosynthetic, this is already a type of metabolism that is complex, relatively complex. So based on this, we estimate that actually life emerged much before these earliest records that we have. But they are very important for our understanding of the beginning of life. So since these photosynthetic organisms start to develop in our planet, they start to produce oxygen, which was maybe the first pollution that life created on Earth. And this was so important that about 2.3 billion years ago, the level of oxygen in the atmosphere was so high that our atmosphere that was first reducing started to become oxidizing. This was a very important event for our planet, because since we have oxygen, new types of life can start to develop. And this includes the ocariotes, which is the group that will give rise to our other organisms, such as animal plants and us. Also interesting to see that multicellular life starts to appear after 2 billion years ago. And about 600 million years, we start to have the first macroscopic organisms that will give rise to the animals, to the plants. And finally, about 500 million years ago, we have the explosion of diversity that we find in the fossil record. So I think it's interesting to give some attention to this scheme, because actually, since our planet has 4.6 billion years of age, and we have life since emerging actually quite fast in the beginning of this time scale, if you look in the full time scale, we have seen that most of the time, geological time of us, the type of life that we could find were actually microorganisms. So microorganisms are present for longer than any other type of organisms. They are also more diverse, also in terms of number. Even if you look to ourselves in our body, we have more cells of bacteria than actually cells of ourselves. So if you look to this perspective, actually, Earth is a planet of microorganisms. If we were, if some other, I don't know, Ayan was doing a mission on Earth and go to our planet and just sample one kilogram of Earth to look what they could find. Probably they would find microorganisms because they are presenting all type of environments. Actually, the first hominids, they appear in really less moments of this, of the history of life in our planet. So if we're going to try to understand the origin of evolution of life, we need to focus in the origin of evolution and the distribution of microorganisms. So this is an artistic representation of a planet. Maybe you are not familiar with this kind of image because this is actually not Earth. This is actually a representation of Mars about 3.5 billion years ago. So as I showed you, 3.5 billion years ago, we already had the life for Earth. And back then, actually, Mars had some very interesting conditions for the study of life. I don't know if you can see, but yeah. So back then, Mars had liquid water, had atmosphere. It was protected by magnetic fields. So not much different from the conditions that we had on Earth 3.5 billion years ago. So maybe life could have emerged on Earth and traveled to Mars by the impact of some asteroids. Maybe actually it could have been the opposite. Life emerged first on Mars and came to Earth. Or maybe they emerged independently in both planets. All these hypotheses are actually considered in astrobiology. But one thing that is very interesting and different from Mars in respect to Earth is that actually Mars doesn't have tectonic activity. So on Earth, most of these old rocks, they were actually recycled by the tectonic activity. But on Mars, when we go and study the rocks from there, actually most of them were formed billions of years ago. So they are very interesting opportunity for us to look for possible records of fossil life in this planet. And while this is actually already happening, I think most of you could have seen a few months ago these very impressive images of the landing of the Mars 2020 Perseverance rover Mars. We could actually watch for the first time the landing of a rover in other planets. And Perseverance is actually a mission that is focused in the search of traces of past life on Mars. So Perseverance, we will not only look for rocks and traces of life, but it also has this structures to actually dig the planet and collect samples that will be stocked in some cylinders that will actually be planned to come back to Earth in the near future. So there are probably in the 2030 submissions that we will go and collect the samples collected by Perseverance to bring back to Earth. So we could take the samples to our labs, to our synchrotones, to the best laboratories that we can have on Earth and try to look for records of life. So if you want to look for life in the samples, first we need to come back again to paleontology and ask ourselves how can we identify a fossil biosignature? How do these things look like here on Earth if you want to look for them on Mars? So I'm going to show a bit of how these traces of past life look like here on Earth. So one structure that we find, we used to find quite a lot in early Earth nowadays, it's less common, but it still exists in some places. There are structures called stromatolites. Here you can see an example of a stromatolite that existed in Australia, Shark Bay. So these structures are formed by photosynthetic microorganisms, so they grow towards the sun. So they create this layer, the structure that grows towards the sun. We also have an example here of stromatolite of almost two billion years ago. So this is a longitudinal cut of stromatolite. So here you can really see the layers that were found by these microorganisms trying to grow on top of each other to reach the sun, to do photosynthesis. And a few years ago, one study took some rocks from Greenland and described these structures as possibly the earliest traces of life on Earth that were stromatolitic structures. Few not so long after another study reassessed these evidences and said they were actually not stromatolites. They were actually created by the metamorphism, which is quite strong in these rocks from Greenland. So it's still controversial and open question about these stromatolites. Another example of traces of life that we can study are microbial mats. So these are biofilms of microorganisms that's organized, is forming these mats. And these are an example for microbial mats from Brazil, Lagoa vermelia, that our group from the synchrotron was collecting to do some studies. And it's also interesting because in 2015, the Curiosity rover that is also on Mars took some images of structures that look a lot with how these structures generated by microbial mats look on Earth. But when the study was published, the rover was already quite far from the structure. So just with the images, it's not, well, big claims require big lines of evidence. So this was just a possibility that maybe these structures were formed by microorganisms, but there's no further evidence about that. Well, and bringing to the, now the focus of my PhD, another type of structures that we can study is microfossils. So microfossils, they are basically fossilized microorganisms or the remains of microorganisms that was preserved in the fossil record. And they are interesting because they are not just structures formed by life, they are actually that direct evidences of life, direct evidences of these microorganisms. And these images that you see here, there are actually some claims of the putative oldest microfossils on Earth. We have these iron structures from Canada. We have these structures from Australia that we were described in the 90s. And still, there are a lot of controversies if they are not fossils and also other structures from Australia that still debate if which of them are the oldest. So as you can see, actually, every time we're talking about the oldest fossils of Earth, this is a very controversial and difficult question. And why is this so difficult to answer? As you can see, these are claims of fossils. And in the bottom here, you can see other structures that were described in other rocks, some organic, some mineral. And here in the right corner, we have an actually famous case, which is the Martian meteorite Alan Hughes. In 1996, researchers from NASA described these structures that look like microorganisms, but they were about 100 nanometers in size. So they claim it could be nanobacteria from meteorites from Mars, found on Earth. And even the president of the United States, Clinton, went to the media and announced that they might have found life from Mars. And after a lot of debates, they actually contested these findings and said that they were actually abiotic structures. But actually, all the structures that you see in the bottom, they are not fossils. They are what we call cilophossus. These are structures from bivoconic glass that accumulate organics, structures from the laboratory. And as I said, abiotic features. So when we find something that we claim to be a microfossil, we need to first prove that this could not be generated abiotically by any other way. And this is challenging. So why is it so difficult? First, when we're talking about these microfossils, we are talking about prokaryotes, which are bacteria. And these are actually very simple in morphology. And they are small, they are few microbes in size, which makes them easily, you can easily confound them with some structures that were generated abiotically, like these ones that I show in the images. Since we are studying structures that are rocks that are not really clean materials, we have a lot of things that happened or contamination or other materials involved. It's a complex system. We cannot just use a bulk analysis. We really need to go look at appropriate scales to be able to see the structures. And we cannot forget that these rocks are very old. There were a lot of geological processes happening with tomorphism. So we can say that they were crooked because they were submitted to high temperatures. They were squeezed, they were twisted. We had a lot of different levels of processing that can happen and then will also affect and outhear the structures. So they will not necessarily look so close to the original morphology. But there are also some technical limitations that I will focus a bit more because then we start to bring a bit to the focus of this webinar. And some of these technical limitations are related to some specific characteristics. For example, bacterias want to fill dozens of microns. So if you want to have a technique to study them, we need to have an anometric resolution to be able to look in detail into the structures. We should aim for a micron scale field of view if you want to have a full picture of the structures. As I said, they might be a bit altered. So it's important to be able to look them in detail. In terms of contrast, this is also very challenging because these fossils, they are within a rock of mineralized matrix. The biology has been quite degraded. So we actually have a very low concentration of the organics preserved. We have a very low density contrast. And this, I will talk a bit more, is quite challenging for most of conventional imaging methods. And there are also other important aspects. Since the structures can be very ambiguous, can resemble, abiotic structures can resemble, fossils is important if we can have 3D imaging to be able to unambiguously resolve this structure. And they are often precious if we're talking about earlier fossils. So we don't want to destroy them. And also if we can have a non-destructive method, we can also couple this analysis to other chemical analysis. We can also do some XRF, some diffraction, associate different information, which will be essential if you want to give a final answer if a structure is a fossil or not. I just show you an example of a fossil with just a sphere that was imaged in different different types of techniques. So optical microscopy, Raman, scanning electron microscopy with EDS, also just scanning electron microscopy, and also transmission of electron microscopy. So what I want to show here is that, for example, we can study fossils with scanning electron microscopy, but because it will provide us the nanometric resolution that we want. But this technique is restricted to the surface and it's to the, so we'll be able just to have an overview of one's lies or the surface of the samples we want to study. We can also go for transmission electron microscopy and see in detail, but then we will need, again, to look just into D and to have a very thin slice, about 100 nanometers thick, maximum. So it would be just a slice of our cell. And if this slice is in not appropriate angle or position, we might end up having conclusions that are actually misleading. And we can also do feedback associated with scanning electron microscopy, so we can get treated information and then on a scale. But the feedback generate gaps between the slices, which will decrease the resolution. And by the end of your imaging analysis, we don't have any sample anymore, you destroyed it. And we don't want to do that if you want to study pressure samples or if you want to do complementary analysis. So just bring us to X-rays. Well, most of you are experts in imaging with X-rays and we all know that absorption contrast is very interesting if you want to see materials with very different densities. But I want to talk a bit of what this implies for the study of fossils. For example, during my master's, we studied these fossil fishes from Brazil. We took them to a normal absorption CT in the hospital. And if you do a common absorption CT in this kind of fossil, this is what you see. So here we could see some of the vertebral column of the fossil. We could see some crystals that grow in empty spaces, the outlines. Of course, the resolution here is not great because it's a hospital machine, but we could have an overview of the fish. But well, when we are talking to fossils, since the minerals have very similar densities, it's actually much more advantageous if we could explore the phase contrast. And we did that. We took the same fish and some others and we took to the ID-19 in ASF. And these are the results of the same fish. Of course, the resolution is not at all the same. Here now we have a micro resolution, but I would like you to focus more in the contrast aspect. So before, we could not identify many structures, but now we can have the tails of not only the bones, but also the gills. We could even look in the tail into the gastrointestinal content of these fishes. We could see the fishes last meal before dying. And if you cannot identify what it is, I will give you a clue. So it was very impressive, the level of detail that we could obtain with phase contrast CT in these fossils. And these results we published also the first description of a fossil heart. So this is to illustrate why we want to go for phase contrast in this study of fossils. Why is this so relevant for our case? So this brings us to typography. Typography is also advantageous to the study of microfossils because it's a scanning method. So this allows us to image extended objects related to the resolution and to the size of the of the beam. So we can have images of the whole cells. We get a nanometric resolution, so we can go in detail in the ultra-cellar scale. We can get quantitative phase contrasts that I will show in the tail that will bring us information about the fossil composition. And it's a non-destructive method. And of course we can do this in Traded D. So it's covering all the requirements that I was showing you in the beginning of this presentation. Just a few details about sample preparation. This was our first challenge because when we are studying microfossils we start in a petrographic thin section. So it's a very thin section of rock that we analyze in the optical microscope. 30 microns stick more or less. So we need to go find our fossil of interest and have them prepared in the pillar. So we need to be sure that this 15 microns pillar will have our structure of interest. And this was our first challenge. And this means that this is actually an invasive method. And we will have a field of view limited to the size of our sample. So basically we took these images to the optical microscope. We chose structures that were close to the surface using transmission light. For example, here we select this structure. We use a reflection image to have the same field of view. So we could find structures in the surface. So now we could find the same region of interest using reflection. And we could take this to the scan electron microscope, take the, find the same region of interest, take the same image. And then we could do a zooming sequence that will be allowing us to find these structures in the feed microscope to prepare the pillar. Of course we did all this by hand by correlating the images. But ideally if we have a correlative microscopy this work would be much easier. So we took our samples to the three slideshowers, to the CISACS B9. And I'm going to show you here some of our results starting with this, which are called fossils from the Minky Mountain locality of the Gunford information. They have about two billion years ago, two billion years of age. They were described as hematite microfossil. So the hematite crystals substituted the original material. So they are actually poorly preserved. And this is what we could find. So this is our pillar. If you're looking inside, we can see the fossil filaments distributed within the pillar. We have a high density crystals, which are the iron oxides. And we have also other phases. We could segment these other phases. Here in green, I will, I will, I will put the main body of the fossils in orange, the crystals. And now we have an overview of these fossils inside the pillar of rock. But we also have nanometric resolutions. So we can also go in the tail and look in the tail, how is this material distributed? How, for example, this fracture is inside what we discovered to be the organic material. How is the shape of the oxide, the iron oxide crystals cubic and octahedral. And now this non-destructive ability. So we preserved the sample for other analysis. So we were very happy. We obtained the 52 nanometers resolution for the fossils. Our contrast allowed us also to identify, for example, in this region here, we could not see anything in optical microscopy. But actually, when we look in dichotrophy, we could see the direction materials that were not visible. And this is interesting because optical microscopy relies in transparency of the samples and in color for the contrast. So we got a contrast that was actually better than the contrast for optical microscopy. And we identified, we identified this brittle and low density material, which is the the darker here. And also this iron oxides that I mentioned to have a cubic and octahedral morphologies. So we wanted to know if these are actually organic material. At first, we even thought it could be just avoiding the fossils. And if these iron oxides are actually hematite, because this is not the morphology expected for a hematite crystal. And as I said, the quantitative electron density contrast of dichography helped us to go deeper into this information. So we could identify the organic and the mineral phases. So we use this approach from an ADS paper to estimate the electron density. And by estimating the electron density, we calculated the density of the materials. And with the density of the materials, we could see that our matrix was composed by quarks, as expected. Our low density material was with the density, which is consistent with matric hydrogen, which was exactly what we expect for the temperatures that this sample was submitted. So we could see that was matric, so slightly degraded hydrogen. But when we looked at the iron oxides, actually, the density was not consistent with hematite, but it was consistent with another iron oxide, which is less common, but it's called megamite. So the mass density indicates that we could identify matric hydrogen organic material, which is very relevant if you want to look for life. And we identified the megamite, as I said, and this was very interesting because although in all the formation hematite was the dominant iron oxide, when we go to the nanoscale, the crystals that are actually associated to organic material, the toughenomic pathway of the iron oxide was not the same as the formation in general. The association with the organic material made it become a different type of iron oxide, which is the megamite. So we got this very interesting insight into the nanoscale of these fossils. Second example that I'd like to show you, these are carbonaceous fossils a bit younger from Drachenformation in Norway. So these are actually just round morphologies, spheroid morphologies, which is simple. So basically, when they identify these fossils, they just classify them all the same because we don't have many features preserved, just the cell envelope. But we analyzed isolated species and colonial specimens. Actually, these are the same fossils that I showed you in the beginning of the presentation where they used different types of imaging. So now we can see the difference of typography for the other results that were obtained by other imaging. So even for structures that were formed only by carbonaceous material, we had enough contrast to distinguish the organic cell structures. And this was very good because it's the most challenging type of material to be studying with x-rays. We could also identify the crystal that was associated to the fossil. We saw that it was actually not pyrite as previously described for these fossils. The density of pyrite is much higher and is actually a mineral composed of different phases. While we could not identify the crystal, we got the densities, but we had so many candidates that we would need further analysis to be able to constrain which mineral it could be. But we could see that actually this crystal, it grows in the cell wall of the fossil. So we can see the cell wall inside the crystal. So we actually know that the crystal was formed in the fossil and not the opposite. So this is also very interesting site into microbial mineral interaction, which is also relevant when we want to understand the preservation of fossils. For the colonial fossils, we had a shift in the feed preparation. So as I said, if we had a correlative microscopy, this would be more precise. So here we shifted in few microns and we could not sample the full fossil, but we could get part of it too. So we could look at the tail, the two types of microorganism, and we saw that they actually have very different cell envelopes, ultra structures. While one is about one micron thick with some striations, the other one was actually much thinner, 200 nanometers. So this actually shows that the colonial fossils have much thinner cell walls in much less structure than the individual ones. This could be related to their style, this type of life, the paleoecology. But this is interesting because they are classified as the same fossil because the only thing that they can see in optical microscopy is the is the spheroid structure. But now we are able to actually start refining a bit this classification because probably they are not even the same type of microorganism because the level of complexity is quite different between these two specimens. But we could, for example, now measure the thickness of the cell walls and see that this thickness was very homogeneous in our planes. We could measure size, volume, the proportion of these fossils. And now this also identified the keratin, as I said, it's very important if you're looking for fossils to be able to track the organics. And this is interesting because all these are actually criteria for defining the biogenicity of a fossil. These are the kind of things that we can use, typography to look in a structure. So when we have a structure that we don't know if it's a fossil or not, we can do this kind of analysis. And this will help us to identify if this could be a fossil or not. For example, a non-biological structure would hardly have a homogeneous 3D cell envelope, for example. This is a biological characteristic. So this is the kind of analysis we can have. So by using typography, 3D typography, we can do non-destructive analysis of microfossils. We could have contrast to resolve even the carbonation structures. The quantitative electron density associated to the nanoscale morphology allowed us to identify kerogen, which are the organics, iron oxides, and to do a geochemical characterization of these fossils. So we understood more not only about the fossils themselves, but also about the fossilization process. And we were able to identify nanoscale biogenicity criteria. So we are taking the evaluation of the biogenicity to the nanoscale with this kind of studies. And this makes typography a potential approach to investigate samples for Mars, for example. Well, and just taking this a bit further, while doing my postdoc, we did, we decided also to explore laminography. So we wanted to do the tree imaging of laterally extended specimens. And some advantages is that laminography, we can don't need to do the pillar preparation, so we can go directly to study the petrographic team sections. That as I said is the same, the first geometry that we have for studying microfossils. So it's faster, easier, and also cheaper. We don't need to sample a pillar as I said. So it's also non-invasive. And this will allow us to have a flexible field of view. We will not be restricted to the 15 microns that will, it was, for example, the average dimension of our pillar. But of course, it comes with some drawbacks. We have a lower resolution than with normal PXIT. And while we lose the quantitative electron density, so we start to have only a semi-quantitative information. So the scientific case that we applied laminography are these rocks from very interesting place called the Rio Tinto in Spain. It's two million years old, very young compared to the other fossils that I study. But it's a very particular ecosystem. It has a very low pH. It's a very acidic ecosystem with a high concentration of heavy metals. So it was very surprising actually to find a lot of microbeactivity in this place. So this is considered an extreme environment to study extremophiles that are organized that survive in extreme conditions. And it's also geochemical, mineralogical, analog of Mars. So by studying the rocks from Rio Tinto, we can understand the potential preservation of these microbes in acidic soils, such as the soils for Mars. But the soils we already know, they have low potential preservation for genetics. And these rocks are often not translucent. And as I said, for optical microscopy, this can be a problem because if the mineral like hematite is not transparent, we cannot identify a fossil that could be preserved inside of it. So this is an example of some fossil filaments that we did with laminography. This was our first experiment. So we just removed the rocks from the glass. We mounted it in a sample holder for laminography and then we send them back to CISACS. This was the first remote laminography experiment for users, I think that Manuel said is in the last talk. So this is all very new for us. And I'm going to show you some results that we got from here and for our field ticolaminography. So we first measured these fossils using for our field ticolaminography. We did a field of 70 microns. And we could obtain resolution of 110 nanometers. We could identify the fossils. We could go in the tail and identify also other structures we could have not seen before. We could see this in context, just some images of what we obtained. We still need to deeper investigate to try to understand what are those features if they could be also biological or not. But we are very happy that actually we demonstrated that this approach could work. And again, this will allow us to do all those analyses in this kind of fossils to understand the preservation of these fossils in acidic environment. And even more impressive for us was doing the near field ticography. Because we actually measured a field of view of 220 microns. And we also obtained about 110 nanometers, 3D resolution estimated with for your shell correlation. So we actually were able to do all this field of view. And to see how not now not only the fossils, but a much larger context of geobiological context for these fossils now with nanography. So we're very happy with still very preliminary data that I'm showing. We still need to go deeper on it. But for example, we could see different filaments. We could segment them in 3D. We now will be able to understand also about the diversity because we can already see that they are not just one type of microorganism. We have different dimensions, different morphologies here. So we'll be able to understand better the diversity of these fossils from these rocks. And it was also interesting because we could look to these places that were actually not opaque to optical light, to visible light. And we could look in the tail and see that they were composed of low-density crystals, fatty crystals, but also some filaments actually. We could not identify them before with optical microscopy. But with ticography, we could see that ticolaminography, we could see that there are actually even filaments here you can see in green preserved among these fatty crystals. When we're looking to D, we cannot see them because they all look just like the fatty crystals in 2D. But looking in 3D, we are actually finding that this is much richer in terms of fossil preservation than we actually first expected. So first news, the fossils are actually not present only in translucent areas, not only in, for example, Goetite. They are actually present in other glomerates. So we see that we have filaments, we have also degraded filaments. So this also allows us to understand more about how fossils are preserved in different minerals within the same geological context. We cannot find a higher density minerals associated. But we don't know yet if these fossils are actually hollow or composed by organics. We see that they are lower in density, but as I said, we don't have the same contentiveness for laminography. So we want to explore this further. For example, doing simulations of a reconstruction using the missing cone that are typical for laminography reconstruction and see which kind of electron densities we could obtain. So actually, if anyone would like to help us in this kind of work, this is something that can be further explored. And I think it will be very interesting to understand better. But in general, laminography, tycolaminography is allowing us to evaluate not only the fossils, but the surrounding minerals ranging from a scale of hundreds of nanometers to hundreds of microns. So this is very impressive. And it's a very important range for our type of study. So we are also now getting some access to the geological context of our fossils. And this also makes this approach useful as a first method to be used to inspect fossils. So we can first do tycolaminography and do after x-ray fluorescence and other methods that will probably damage the sample or require some sampling. So just to finish, our main message is that both PXIT and also by XL are allowing us to reach a few hundreds of microns, interdue with a nomadic resolution. So this is allowing us to cover a range of field of real resolution that also has a lot of potential to other fields in geology, soil sciences, environmental sciences, not only limited to paleobiology. And just to finish, I would like to let you the message that microfossils are actually very interesting scientific cases for the third generation signatures because they are radiation-hard. So we are actually applying these methods that are quite long, quite time-consuming, but they resist well. So they are also, for example, scientific cases that were used for the development of carnauba, taruman station. They require nomadic resolution. So they also help us to push the limits of the imaging methods. They are quite flexible for sample preparation. And they cover a range of important scientific questions regarding morphology, structure, chemistry. So we are exploring not only the coherent defection imaging, but we are also doing x-ray f into d3d, sticksem, and even some scan sacks that we are trying to look for for other features that could be preserved in the false record and so far it goes. And for us, taking the paleontology to the non-scale is a really essential step for our field of paleontology if you want to understand the earliest records of life on us, but also if you want to be ready for the samples that will come back from Mars in the near future. So we will be able to also look and be able to find the records of life in this, which will be the most special samples of the history of humanity so far. With these, I'd like to thank a lot of people that were involved in this work, both from Brazilian syncretone, from the Swiss light source, and also from my current laboratory. And with this, I should thank you for your attention. And if you have any questions. Thank you so much, Lara. This was a really, really interesting overview for non-experts. So I hope there will be a few questions, curiosity, technical questions from the audience. Please raise your hand or write it in the chat or just unmute yourself and ask Lara. Maybe I start, Lara, with I have a very general question. So it's clear from what you've shown that this research has a large degree of interdisciplinary. So first question is how easy is to get all these competencies together within a large team, I believe, or does one really need to learn a lot in different fields? And the second question is which type of support and competence do you need at a beam line to be able to perform these studies? Yeah, very interesting question. I think this field, one of the main challenges is that it's actually a quite new field. We actually call it paleometry, which is the application of physical methods to problems of paleontology. It's really been developed in the last few years. So it's quite challenging because when we come to a beam line, we come with these samples that are very difficult for the people that work in a beam line. And when we go to, for example, to a geologist, it's very difficult to explain why, how we will need the samples and what kind of things we can do. So as you said, I have this interdisciplinary background, which helped me a lot, not just for the research, but the main part for me, the most important thing is the communication between the different fields, which, when I started the day, they were quite far. So now that we are bringing the samples and other people doing other type of research like this, it's getting easier and easier because now the beam line scientists are getting used to the samples. So as I said, for Brazil, it was interesting because they were developing this new beam line for focusing coherent diffraction imaging. So it was interesting that we already were, we were already working with this kind of thing. So we could already say, so we need this kind of sample holders, we need this kind of environment. So actually, the Karnauba beam line will be very interesting for this kind of studies. But in general, it's quite challenging, well, especially sample preparation. So it requires really a lot of interaction. So we interact with the people from biology because in some aspects we are talking about biology, but we also interact with people from geology. So I think the most important, let's say competence is to be able to communicate in different areas because it's impossible to be really an expert on everything. But I think it's essential to be able to understand the methods, what they can offer, so we can bring this to the scientific questions and say, maybe this can be useful. So I just hope by showing this kind of work we'll have more people interested because we really need more people pushing this area. And another question that goes also in this direction. I can see that you were saying that the X-rays are interesting because they are non-destructive, but then effectively you have to cut out samples and then, you know, laminography helps in this because you can use preparation that you typically use for other techniques. And then if there really one needs more resolution, it's easier to figure out an area that you can safely cut out without destroying completely your sample. But if you could dream like a multi-sum, you know, a multi-scale facility, which are the techniques or which are the fields of view that you will need for a, let's say one beam line or, you know, a combination of beam lines. Yeah, we can even imagine, for example, we'll have this sample coming from Mars. It will be a crystal or a piece of rock. And we want to investigate if there's a fossil. So what do we need? So essentially, we will need to combine morphology and geochemical composition. This is basic. Just morphology or just chemistry alone. It's not sufficient. So we could start, of course, with a micro-resolution method would be interesting, but to have an overview. And as I said, the laminography was interesting because now we are increasing our field of view. But we need to go down to the non-scale and we need to go down at least 100 nanometers if we want to look in detail of an organism. But x-ray fluorescence is a method that is really necessary. So I didn't show. But of course, the next step of this work is always to do some x-ray fluorescence, because we need also to have a chemistry that supports our claims. Well, x-ray diffraction, because mineralogy, we're also going to tell us a lot. But I think if we are able to have coherent diffraction imaging, we are already covering a lot in this kind of information. So basically, now, actually, we are working, developing a system for this sample that will come from ours. And it needs to be a really multi-method bin line. So a bin line where you can really go for a sample of hundreds of microns and be able to go further to maybe hundreds of nanometers. I think Auba is trying to do a bit of this because they are already correlating a lot of things. But of course, then we will have the restriction of the sample dimensions. So it's quite complicated actually. In the end, if you really want to go for a nano, we always need to sample a bit. And at least we need to know exactly which bit to sample. So I will go for microtomography, dichography, and if possible 3D x or f. I think this will be the my dream, at least we start.