4.5 Article

Preservation of feather fibers from the Late Cretaceous dinosaur Shuvuuia deserti raises concern about immunohistochemical analyses on fossils

Journal

ORGANIC GEOCHEMISTRY
Volume 125, Issue -, Pages 142-151

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.orggeochem.2018.09.008

Keywords

Fossils; Feathers; Antibodies; Keratin; Calcium phosphate; Protein

Funding

  1. NASA Astrobiology Institute [NNA13AA90A]
  2. Dr. Stephen S. F. Hui Trust Fund [201403173007]
  3. Research Grant Council of Hong Kong's General Research Fund [17103315]
  4. Faculty of Science of the University of Hong Kong
  5. American Museum of Natural History (AMNH)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

White fibers from a Late Cretaceous dinosaur Shuvuuia deserti stained positive for beta-keratin antibodies in a 1999 paper, followed by many similar immunological claims for Mesozoic protein in bones and integument. Antibodies recognize protein epitopes derived from its tertiary and quaternary structure, so such results would suggest long polypeptide preservation allowing for sequencing with palaeobiological implications. However, proteins are relatively unstable biomacromolecules that readily hydrolyze and amino acids exhibit predictable instability under diagenetic heat and pressure. Furthermore, antibodies can yield false positives. We reanalyzed a Shuvuuia fiber using focused ion beam scanning electron microscopy, energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy, time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry, and laser-stimulated fluorescence imaging, finding it to be inorganic and composed mainly of calcium phosphate. Our findings are inconsistent with any protein or other original organic substance preservation in the Shuvuuia fiber, suggesting that immunohistochemistry may be inappropriate for analyzing fossils due to issues with false positives and a lack of controls. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available