Back

Validation of biosignatures confirms the informative nature of fossil organic Raman spectra

Wiemann, J.; Briggs, D. E. G.

2021-02-08 paleontology
10.1101/2021.02.07.430162 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Raman spectroscopy has facilitated rapid progress in the understanding of patterns and processes associated with biomolecule fossilization and revealed the preservation of biological and geological signatures in fossil organic matter. Nonetheless six large-scale statistical studies of Raman spectra of carbonaceous fossils, selected from a number of independent assessments producing similar trends, have been disputed. Alleon et al. (21) applied a wavelet transform analysis in an unconventional way to identify frequency components contributing to two baselined spectra selected from these studies and claimed similarities with a downloaded edge filter transmission spectrum. On the basis of indirect comparisons and qualitative observations they argued that all spectral features detected, including significant mineral peaks, can be equated to edge filter ripples and are therefore artefactual. Alleon et al. (21) extrapolated this conclusion to dispute not only the validity of n>200 spectra in the studies in question, but also the utility of Raman spectroscopy, a well established method, for analysing organic materials in general. Here we test the claims by Alleon et al. (21) using direct spectral comparisons and statistical analyses. We present multiple independent lines of evidence that demonstrate the original, biologically and geologically informative nature of the Raman spectra in question. We demonstrate that the methodological approach introduced by Alleon et al. (21) is unsuitable for assessing the quality of spectra and identifying noise within them. Statistical analyses of large Raman spectral data sets provide a powerful tool in the search for compositional patterns in biomaterials and yield invaluable insights into the history of life.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 13%
14.5%
2
Interface Focus
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.5%
3
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
53 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
4
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 1%
6.4%
5
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.9%
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 27%
4.3%
7
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 3%
4.3%
50% of probability mass above
8
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
301 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.3%
9
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.0%
10
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 25%
3.6%
11
PNAS Nexus
147 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.1%
12
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
13
Biology Letters
66 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
14
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 35%
1.5%
15
mSystems
361 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.2%
16
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
17
Journal of Proteome Research
215 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
18
mBio
750 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.0%
19
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
20
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
21
ISME Communications
103 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
22
Journal of Structural Biology
58 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
23
Biomedical Optics Express
84 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
24
Journal of the Royal Society Interface
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.8%
25
microLife
19 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
26
FEMS Microbiology Ecology
47 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
27
Advanced Biology
29 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
28
Functional Ecology
53 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.7%
29
Nano Letters
63 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%