4.4 Article

Sterols in red and green algae: quantification, phylogeny, and relevance for the interpretation of geologic steranes

期刊

GEOBIOLOGY
卷 6, 期 4, 页码 411-420

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1472-4669.2008.00167.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Steroids, a class of triterpenoid lipids with high preservation potential, are widely distributed in sedimentary rocks. All eukaryotes have a physiological requirement for these molecules, making steroids important biomarkers for aiding our understanding of eukaryote molecular evolution and geologic history. C-26-C-30 sterols are the molecules most commonly incorporated or synthesized by eukaryotes, and correspond to C-26-C-30 steranes ubiquitously and abundantly preserved in petroleums and sedimentary bitumens. Because these sterols occur in evolutionarily diverse taxa, it can be difficult to associate any particular compound with a single group of organisms. Nevertheless, geochemists have still been able to draw parallels between the empirical patterns in geologic sterane abundances and the age of petroleum source rocks. Paleobiologists have also used sterane data, in particular the patterns in C-29 and C-28 steranes, to support fossil evidence of an early radiation of green algae in latest Proterozoic and Paleozoic and the succession of the major modern phytoplankton groups in the Mesozoic. Although C-29 sterols are found in many eukaryotes, organisms that produce them in proportional abundances comparable to those preserved in Proterozoic and Paleozoic rocks are limited. Based on a large, phylogenetically based survey of sterol profiles from the kingdom Plantae, we conclude that modern ulvophyte and early diverging prasinophyte green algae produce high abundances of C-29 relative to C-27 and C-28 sterols most consistent with the sterane profiles observed in Paleozoic rocks. Our analysis also suggests that ancestral stem groups among the Plantae, including the glaucocystophytes and early divergent red algae are also plausible candidates.

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

4.4
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