Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22158954›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2012

Experimental taphonomy of giant sulphur bacteria: implications for the interpretation of the embryo-like Ediacaran Doushantuo fossils.

J A Cunningham, C-W Thomas, S Bengtson, F Marone, M Stampanoni, F R Turner, J V Bailey, R A Raff, E C Raff, P C J Donoghue

Open access · bronzeAbstract readHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Molecular clocks and the early evolution of metazoan nervous systems.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2015
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

J A CunninghamSchool of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1RJ, UK.
C-W Thomas
S Bengtson
F Marone
M Stampanoni
F R Turner
J V Bailey
R A Raff
E C Raff
P C J Donoghue
Indiana University Bloomington · USUniversity of Bristol · GBPaul Scherrer Institute · CHSwedish Museum of Natural History · SEUniversity of Minnesota · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Ediacaran Doushantuo biota has yielded fossils interpreted as eukaryotic organisms, either animal embryos or eukaryotes basal or distantly related to Metazoa. However, the fossils have been interpreted alternatively as giant sulphur bacteria similar to the extant Thiomargarita. To test this hypothesis, living and decayed Thiomargarita were compared with Doushantuo fossils and experimental taphonomic pathways were compared with modern embryos. In the fossils, as in eukaryotic cells, subcellular structures are distributed throughout cell volume; in Thiomargarita, a central vacuole encompasses approximately 98 per cent cell volume. Key features of the fossils, including putative lipid vesicles and nuclei, complex envelope ornament, and ornate outer vesicles are incompatible with living and decay morphologies observed in Thiomargarita. Microbial taphonomy of Thiomargarita also differed from that of embryos. Embryo tissues can be consumed and replaced by bacteria, forming a replica composed of a three-dimensional biofilm, a stable fabric for potential fossilization. Vacuolated Thiomargarita cells collapse easily and do not provide an internal substrate for bacteria. The findings do not support the hypothesis that giant sulphur bacteria are an appropriate interpretative model for the embryo-like Doushantuo fossils. However, sulphur bacteria may have mediated fossil mineralization and may provide a potential bacterial analogue for other macroscopic Precambrian remains.

Indexed as

FossilsAnimalsBacteriaEmbryo, NonmammalianEukaryotic CellsHistory, AncientSulfurThiotrichaceaeSulfur

Identifiers

PMID22158954
PMCPMC3297454
OpenAlexW2154830759

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.