4.3 Article

Affinities of Early Cambrian acritarchs studied by using microscopy, fluorescence flow cytometry and biomarkers

期刊

REVIEW OF PALAEOBOTANY AND PALYNOLOGY
卷 108, 期 1-2, 页码 37-53

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0034-6667(99)00032-9

关键词

acritarchs; dinoflagellates; green algae; Cambrian; biomarkers; fluorescence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Examination and chemical analysis of extremely well-preserved microfossils from the Lower Cambrian Lukati Formation in Estonia suggests that acritarchs from among the genera Globosphaeridium, Skiagia, Comasphaeridium and Lophosphaeridium have dinoflagellate affinities. The investigation presents a combination of transmitted light microscopy, fluorescence microscopy and flow cytometry, and biomarker analysis that demonstrates a new method for the investigation of problematic organic-walled microfossils. For the chemical analysis, Lukati Formation acritarchs were separated from prasinophycean tasmanitids by size and then divided into two fractions in accordance with the intensity of their autofluorescence signal. Biomarker molecules were generated by pyrolysis directly from isolated acritarch organic walls and studied using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry-mass spectrometry (GC-MS-MS) and metastable reaction monitoring (MRM)-GC-MS. The analysis supported previously made suggestions that acritarchs include microorganisms of different biological affinities. All acritarch fractions contain the common steranes (cholestane, 24-methylcholestane and 24-ethylcholestane) that are characteristic molecules for eukaryotes. However, the dinoflagellate-related biomarkers, dinosterane and 4 alpha-methyl-24-ethylcholestane, were concentrated only in the fraction containing highly autofluorescent acritarchs. Additional chemical analyses of microfossils from the Lower Cambrian Buen Formation of North Greenland confirmed the presence of the dinoflagellate-related biomarkers at a second Early Cambrian locality. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science 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

4.3
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