4.5 Article

The bioinorganic chemistry of the ancient ocean: the co-evolution of cyanobacterial metal requirements and biogeochemical cycles at the Archean-Proterozoic boundary?

期刊

INORGANICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 356, 期 -, 页码 308-318

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/S0020-1693(03)00442-0

关键词

metal-sulfide complexes; cyanobacteria; archean ocean; cobalt; zinc; cadmium

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent evidence from the sulfur isotopic record indicates a transition similar to2.5 billion years ago from an ocean chemistry first dominated by iron and then by sulfide. It has been hypothesized that the selection of metal centers in metalloenzymes has been influenced by the availability of metals through geological time, in particular as a result of large differences in the solubility of metals-sulfides. In this study, we examine the trace metal requirements and sensitivities of marine cyanobacteria. and use recent stability constants to model the abundance and chemical speciation of metals across this chemical transition similar to2.5 billion years ago. Two major results are reported here: (1) the marine cyanobacterial species studied thus far show trace metal preferences and sensitivities that are consistent with their evolution in a sulfidic marine environment, and (2) in an ancient ocean dominated by high fluxes and concentrations of iron. the relative availability of trace metals would have been similar to that of a sulfidic system-Fe > Mn. Ni, Co much greater than Cd. Zn. Cu-as a result of the formation of dissolved sulfide complexes. Thus, the formation of strong aqueous metal-sulfide complexes was likely as important as the precipitation of minerals in influencing the selection of metals in biology. These results suggest that marine biogeochemical cycles and marine bioinorganic chemistry have co-evolved, and that the evidence for this co-evolution has been preserved in the physiology and genomes of modem descendants of the early cyanobacteria. (C) 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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