4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Peroxisome proliferation in foraminifera inhabiting the chemocline: An adaptation to reactive oxygen species exposure?

期刊

JOURNAL OF EUKARYOTIC MICROBIOLOGY
卷 55, 期 3, 页码 135-144

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1550-7408.2008.00318.x

关键词

anoxia; Beggiatoa; Blake Ridge; cold seep; hydrogen peroxide; hydrogen sulfide; microbial mat; Neoproterozoic; Santa Barbara Basin; Soledad Basin

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [P41 RR001219, P41 RR001219-28, RR 01219] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Certain foraminiferal species are abundant within the chemocline of marine sediments. Ultrastructurally, most of these species possess numerous peroxisomes complexed with the endoplasmic reticulum (ER); mitochondria are often interspersed among these complexes. In the Santa Barbara Basin, pore-water bathing Foraminifera and co-occurring sulfur-oxidizing microbial mats had micromolar levels of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), a reactive oxygen species that can be detrimental to biological membranes. Experimental results indicate that adenosine triphosphate concentrations are significantly higher in Foraminifera incubated in 16 mu M H2O2 than in specimens incubated in the absence of H2O2. New ultrastructural and experimental observations, together with published results, lead us to propose that foraminiferans can utilize oxygen derived from the breakdown of environmentally and metabolically produced H2O2. Such a capability could explain foraminiferal adaptation to certain chemically inhospitable environments; it would also force us to reassess the role of protists in biogeochemistry, especially with respect to hydrogen and iron. The ecology of these protists also appears to be tightly linked to the sulfur cycle. Finally, given that some Foraminifera bearing peroxisome-ER complexes belong to evolutionarily basal groups, an early acquisition of the capability to use environmental H2O2 could have facilitated diversification of foraminiferans during the Neoproterozoic.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据