| Literature DB >> 31663774 |
Jian Gong1, Kimberly D Myers1, Carolina Munoz-Saez2, Martin Homann3, Joti Rouillard1, Richard Wirth4, Anja Schreiber4, Mark A van Zuilen1.
Abstract
Entities:
Keywords: Biosignature; El Tatio; Experimental diagenesis; Mars; Sheathed cyanobacteria; Silica sinter
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31663774 PMCID: PMC7133459 DOI: 10.1089/ast.2019.2025
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Astrobiology ISSN: 1557-8070 Impact factor: 4.335
FIG. 4.Fluorescence emission spectra of selected free-living and fossilized sheathed cyanobacteria. Note the loss of the 670-nm peak after the free-living cyanobacteria are entombed within the sinter.
FIG. 11.Single-step high T/P alteration experiment: 250°C, 72 h. (a) SEM overview image of the resulting palisade fabric after experiment. Remaining cell-like structures are not found at the interior of sheath. (b) Zoom-in view of the sheath structure (from a). (c) A further zoom-in image showing that the sheath structure has notably thinned, whereas significant porosity has developed from the interior of the sheath (red arrow). These pores preferentially shape along the filament direction. Accompanying the destruction of the sheath, up to micrometer-sized, perfectly spherical silica spheres are found around the structure (yellow arrow). (d) Optical microscope image from the experimentally altered sample showing the cut position of FIB-prepared TEM foils. (e) TEM overview image of the 100-nm thin foil, showing the morphology of the altered sheath structure. (f) Zoom-in image of the sheath. (g) Further zoom-in view of the sheath interior, showing the significantly degraded sheath and development of porosity within the structure.

Regional overview of the Terrace Geyser, El Tatio Geothermal Field and sampling locations (a) Aerial image of the geyser, apron, and terrace taken by a drone on May 1, 2017. The arrow indicates the sampling location shown in (c) and (d). (b) Aerial image taken on May 2, 2018, demonstrating significant variations in wet–dry conditions of the sinter that are not seasonally controlled. (c) Green microbial mats found growing on the vertical surface of the sinter terrace where water is actively flowing. In nearby dryer areas, the sinter surfaces display a micro-terracette structure. (d) A detailed image of the micro-terracettes that are not covered by microbial mats. Boxed area indicating the samples collection site (corresponding to samples imaged in Fig. 2a and b).
FIG. 2.Cross-sectional microphotographs of the palisade fabric sample in vertical and horizontal cut directions. (a) Thin section (100 μm, vertical cut) overview, showing the whitish outer rim and laminated palisade fabric in the interior. The yellow dashed region indicates sinter lamina subsampled for diagenesis experiments. (b) Thick section (∼5 mm, horizontal cut) overview, showing the outer rim and the interior palisade lamina. Note the stromatolitic shape of the lamina in this cut direction and the whitish inter layers. (c) Zoom-in region from (a). (d) Zoom-in region from b, showing significant porosity in the white and less-green layers (e) Further zoom-in region from c, showing alteration of filament alignment direction, from vertical on the left to horizontal on the right of the image (arrows). (f) A further zoom-in region from d, showing alteration of filament alignment direction, from in/out of the image plane to left/right in the middle of the image. Note the visibly higher porosity in the middle of the image. Alterations in filament alignment direction as well as the porosity generally characterize the palisade fabric lamina (arrows).
FIG. 3.Free-living sheathed cyanobacteria from the wet region of nearby closely associated sinter surface. (a) Microbial mats showing a reticulate morphology under the sheet flow. Note the vertically aligned reticulate ridges (dense green lines). (b) Optical micrograph of a microbial layer from mats in (a) showing sheathed filamentous (boxed area detailed in (c)) cells as well as an unsheathed, semi-transparent filament (arrow). (c) Details of the filaments in (b) showing variable diameter of cells within the sheath. Note the breakage (arrows) of the fragile sheath when handled under the microscope. (d) CLSM image of a filament excited with 488-nm laser, overlaid with an optical image taken with the DIC optics. Note that the sheath did not fluoresce. (e) CLSM stacked image processed with 3D deconvolution, showing localization of pigments. Green and Red are false colors corresponding to the 530 and 660 nm peaks in the fluorescence spectra (Fig. 4). Green color is interpreted as carotenoids (β-carotene), and red color is interpreted as thylakoid-membrane-bound phycobilins. CLSM, confocal laser scanning microscopy; DIC, differential interference contrast.
FIG. 5.SEM images of the free-living sheathed cyanobacteria. (a) Overview image of sheathed filaments. (b) Close-up view of a sheath structure, showing a smooth internal surface texture (red arrow) and some small filaments or rods at the exterior of the sheath (yellow arrows). (c) Close-up view of another sheathed structure. The internal smooth-textured material has an EDX spectrum (EDX-2 in f), indicating that it consists of cellular organic carbon. The outer surface of the sheath consists of predominantly amorphous silica (EDX-1 in f), indicating that early silicification has already occurred. (d) Another view of a sheathed filament, also showing internal organic material. (e) High-resolution image of the sheath surface (from c), showing spherical silica structures coating nanometer-sized filamentous structures (arrow). (f) EDX spectra corresponding to studied regions in (c). EDX; SEM, scanning electron microscopy.
FIG. 6.Detailed image of the palisade sinter rim and silicified, sheathed microbial filaments immediately below the rim toward the interior of the sinter. (a) Overview image of the sinter rim. (b) Close-up image of the interface between the rim and green microbial filaments. Note the milky white layer at the base of the rim immediately overlaying the microbial filaments (arrow). Sand grains are also found throughout the outer rim structure, whereas no signs of microbial cells can be identified. (c) Zoom-in image of the sheathed microbial filament. Most sheathed filaments appear hollow, but occasionally some internal structures are found to be preserved (d). Some short-segmented, unsheathed filamentous cells are present in close proximity to the sheathed filaments (arrows). (d) Close-up view of the sheathed filament, which contains some internal segmented structures. (e) CLSM of the filament from (d) overlain with optical DIC image, showing that these segmented structures respond to the 488-nm laser excitation. The corresponding emission spectrum was reported in Fig. 4. (f) SEM image of the microbial community in an unembedded sample (corresponding to c), showing segmented filamentous cells within the sheath, detailed sheath morphology, and an unsheathed filamentous cell casted by silica (arrows). The sheath structure was measured to be consistently between 1 and 2 μm in thickness.
FIG. 7.Detailed image of the palisade sinter interior (corresponding to Fig. 2a: dashed region). (a) Sheathed as well as unsheathed filamentous cells at the sinter interior. (b) Similar, sheathed and unsheathed cells. (c) Shrunken filamentous cells within the sheath that also respond to the 488-nm laser excitation. The blue colors are reflections of 405-nm laser from a separate channel, aiming at illuminating the background matrix material. The corresponding fluorescence emission spectrum of the sample is reported in Fig. 4. (d) SEM image of the sinter interior, showing a sheathed framework interspaced with other smaller filamentous structures. (e) An alternative view of the interior, showing a silicified sheath covered by smaller filamentous structures (arrows). (f) Zoom-in image from (e), showing detailed interior structure of these smaller filaments: Some of these smaller filaments have an interior structure, or are hollow, whereas others are completely filled (arrows). (g) Exterior view of these smaller filaments (<500 nm), showing that they form a network structure while they are covered by spherical silica structures (arrows).
FIG. 8.High-resolution SEM and TEM analysis of silicified sheath structures at the interior of the sinter. (a) One- to two-micrometer-thick, rough-textured sheath structure is overlain by a smooth-textured silica (arrows) at the exterior. (b) Close-up view of the transition from rough-textured sheath to smooth-textured silica (arrows). (c) TEM image of FIB-prepared foil (100 nm thick) reveals a clear change of silica morphology from ∼50 nm spheres at the interior to sheets-like toward the exterior. (d) Zoom-in image of the silica spheres, showing a clotted texture (red arrow) as well as an amorphous material that connects and surrounds these spheres (yellow arrow). (e) EDX chemical analyses of the silica spheres (EDX-1 in f), confirming that they consist of only silica, and the surrounding matrix material (EDX-2 in f), which was interpreted as dehydrated extracellular organics.
FIG. 9.Phylum-level community membership and diversity in palisade samples ET17-L14_Rim and ET17-L14_Interior. Major phyla (pie charts) are dominated by four groups, totaling 98.4% of sequences (rim, upper left) and 98.5% (interior, upper right). Detailed phyla table is provided in Supplementary Data S3. The remaining 1.5–2.1% of sequences comprising the set of minor phyla in each sample is displayed in adjacent bar charts. Phyla are color-coded (key, bottom).
ET17-L14_Rim
| Phylum | Class | Genera | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bacteroidetes | Flavobacteriia | 8.74 | |
| Bacteroidetes | Flavobacteriia | 4.23 | |
| Bacteroidetes | Flavobacteriia | 2.34 | |
| Bacteroidetes | Flavobacteriia | 2.19 | |
| Bacteroidetes | Flavobacteriia | 1.93 | |
| Bacteroidetes | Flavobacteriia | 1.51 | |
| Planctomycetes | Planctomycetia | 4.97 | |
| Planctomycetes | Phycisphaerae | 2.30 | |
| Proteobacteria | Alphaproteobacteria | 3.71 | |
| Proteobacteria | Alphaproteobacteria | 2.76 | |
| Proteobacteria | Alphaproteobacteria | 2.35 | |
| Proteobacteria | Alphaproteobacteria | 1.79 | |
| Proteobacteria | Alphaproteobacteria | 1.19 | |
| Proteobacteria | Alphaproteobacteria | 1.10 | |
| Proteobacteria | Alphaproteobacteria | 1.07 | |
| Proteobacteria | Gammaproteobacteria | ||
| Proteobacteria | Gammaproteobacteria | 3.76 | |
| Proteobacteria | Gammaproteobacteria | 3.31 | |
| Proteobacteria | Gammaproteobacteria | 2.44 | |
| Verrucomicrobia | Verrucomicrobiae | 6.23 | |
| Rare genera (<1% total abundance) | 18.00 | ||
Dominant genera and their proportional abundance of total taxonomically identified sequences (%) present in the sample. The single most abundant genus in bold.
ET17-L14_Interior
| Phylum | Class | Genera | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bacteroidetes | Flavobacteriia | 8.12 | |
| Bacteroidetes | Flavobacteriia | 5.14 | |
| Bacteroidetes | Flavobacteriia | 4.23 | |
| Bacteroidetes | Flavobacteriia | 2.13 | |
| Bacteroidetes | Flavobacteriia | 2.17 | |
| Bacteroidetes | Flavobacteriia | 1.83 | |
| Bacteroidetes | Flavobacteriia | 1.75 | |
| Bacteroidetes | Flavobacteriia | 1.42 | |
| Planctomycetes | Planctomycetia | 3.33 | |
| Planctomycetes | Planctomycetia | 1.27 | |
| Proteobacteria | Alphaproteobacteria | 8.05 | |
| Proteobacteria | Alphaproteobacteria | 3.93 | |
| Proteobacteria | Alphaproteobacteria | 2.61 | |
| Proteobacteria | Alphaproteobacteria | 1.35 | |
| Proteobacteria | Alphaproteobacteria | 1.12 | |
| Proteobacteria | Gammaproteobacteria | 4.27 | |
| Proteobacteria | Gammaproteobacteria | 6.71 | |
| Proteobacteria | Gammaproteobacteria | 1.40 | |
| Proteobacteria | Gammaproteobacteria | 1.31 | |
| Proteobacteria | Gammaproteobacteria | 1.05 | |
| Verrucomicrobia | Opitutae | 11.02 | |
| Verrucomicrobia | Opitutae | 9.00 | |
| 17.00 | |||
Dominant genera and their proportional abundance of total taxonomically identified sequences (%) present in the interior portion of the ET17-L14 sample. The single most abundant genus in bold.
ET17-L14_Rim and ET17-L14_Interior
| Type (sub-class) | Order | Genus | Crust | Interior | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % tot | % cy | % tot | % cy | |||
| Cyanobacteria I | Chroococcales | 0.13 | 0.004 | 1.25 | ||
| Cyanobacteria III | Oscillatoriales | 0.097 | 0.098 | |||
| Cyanobacteria III | Oscillatoriales | 0.061 | 15.44 | 0.086 | ||
| Cyanobacteria V | Stigonematales | 0.057 | 14.43 | 0.080 | 25.42 | |
| Cyanobacteria III | Oscillatoriales | 0.007 | 1.68 | 0.013 | 4.17 | |
| Cyanobacteria I | Chroococcales | 0.015 | 3.69 | 0.003 | 0.83 | |
| Cyanobacteria I | Chroococcales | 0.007 | 1.68 | 0.009 | 2.92 | |
| Cyanobacteria III | Oscillatoriales | 0.009 | 2.35 | 0.008 | 2.5 | |
| Cyanobacteria I | Chroococcales | 0.003 | 0.67 | 0.008 | 2.5 | |
| Cyanobacteria IV | Nostocales | 0.004 | 1.01 | 0 | 0 | |
| Cyanobacteria I | Chroococcales | 0.003 | 0.67 | 0.003 | 0.83 | |
| Cyanobacteria II | Pleurocapsales | 0.001 | 0.34 | 0.003 | 0.83 | |
| Cyanobacteria II | Pleurocapsales | 0.001 | 0.34 | 0 | 0 | |
| Cyanobacteria III | Oscillatoriales | 0.001 | 0.34 | 0 | 0 | |
| Cyanobacteria III | Oscillatoriales | 0.003 | 0.67 | 0 | 0 | |
Comparison of the most abundant cyanobacterial genera, by proportional (%) abundance compared with total sequence counts (average of all available sequences and samples), and proportional abundances of each genus (%) compared with total counts of Phylum Cyanobacteria. The two most abundant genera in each sinter zone are shown in bold.
Carbon and Nitrogen Isotope Data
| Sample | [TOC] [%] | δ13C [‰] | SE (δ13C) | [N] [%] | δ15N [‰] | SE (δ15N) | C/N |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ET17-L14_Rim_2a | 0.38 | −23.18 | 0.11 | 0.05 | −1.72 | 0.15 | 7.5 |
| ET17-L14_Interior_2a | 0.86 | −15.78 | 0.11 | 0.10 | 1.73 | 0.15 | 8.5 |
| ET17-L14_Interior_2b | 0.80 | −13.77 | 0.11 | 0.10 | 2.95 | 0.15 | 8.0 |
SE for [TOC] is 0.17 and [N] 0.03, estimated based on repeated measurements of internal standards.
TOC, total organic carbon concentration; N, total organic nitrogen concentration; SE, standard error; C/N, carbon to nitrogen ratio of extracted organic matter.
FIG. 10.Single-step high T/P alteration experiment: 165°C, 72 h. (a) SEM overview image of the resulting palisade fabric after experiment. The general appearance of the interspace smaller filamentous structures is completely altered, relative to the unaltered interior sinter samples. Sheaths, as well as some structures resembling cellular material remained (arrows). (b) Zoom-in view of the sheath structure (from a) that contained a cell-like structure. Note the outer surface of sheath is covered by silica spheres up to 1 μm in diameter. (c) Zoom-in view of the cell-like material and sheath, showing that the sheath itself has fragmented into several concentric layers (arrows), whereas the inner-sheath material resembles preserved shrunken cells.
FIG. 13.Multi-step high T/P alteration experiment (120–300°C, 1–2.5 kbar) of untreated (left column: a, c, e, and g) and pre-air-dried (right column: b, d, f, and h) samples. (a, b) 120°C, 1 kbar step. Both samples preserved primary sheath structure, although the air-dried sample experienced higher physical damage due to the effect of high pressure on a dryer sample. (c, d) 165°C, 1.5 kbar step. Both samples still preserved primary sheath structure. No significant degradation was observed at the sheath level from the previous step. (e, f) 250°C, 2.0 kbar step. The untreated sample showed significant damage of the sheath structure, whereas the predried sample showed no additional degradation from the previous heating step. Occasionally, inner sheath materials resembling degraded cellular organics have been preserved (arrow). (g, h) 300°C, 2.5 kbar step. The untreated sample showed formation of self-organized crystalline silica structures, whereas the predried sample did not transform and still preserved the original sheath structure.
FIG. 12.Single-step high T/P alteration experiment: 300°C, 72 h. (a) SEM overview image of the resulting material after experiment. Spherical ball-like structures have formed. (b) Zoom-in image of the spherical structure (c) A further zoom-in image of the spherical structure rim and interior, showing a crystalline rim and granular interior. (d) Optical microscope image from the experimentally altered sample showing the cut position of FIB-prepared TEM foils. (e) TEM overview image of the 100-nm thin foil, showing a cross-sectional view of the spherical structure. (f) Zoom-in image of the crystalline rim. (g) A further zoom-in view of the crystalline rim, showing blade-like structures. (h) High-resolution molecular structure of the crystal. (i) 2D Fourier Transform of the molecular structure map, from which the mineralogy of the crystal has been calculated. The mineral was determined to be α-cristobalite.