Cited by 186Paleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsProtist diversity and phylogenyPlant Diversity and Evolution

A one-billion-year-old multicellular chlorophyte

Open access
Tang, Qing, Pang, Ke, Yuan, Xunlai, Xiao, Shuhai·2020·Nature Ecology & Evolution

Abstract

Chlorophytes (representing a clade within the Viridiplantae and a sister group of the Streptophyta) probably dominated marine export bioproductivity and played a key role in facilitating ecosystem complexity before the Mesozoic diversification of phototrophic eukaryotes such as diatoms, coccolithophorans and dinoflagellates. Molecular clock and biomarker data indicate that chlorophytes diverged in the Mesoproterozoic or early Neoproterozoic, followed by their subsequent phylogenetic diversification, multicellular evolution and ecological expansion in the late Neoproterozoic and Palaeozoic. This model, however, has not been rigorously tested with palaeontological data because of the scarcity of Proterozoic chlorophyte fossils. Here we report abundant millimetre-sized, multicellular and morphologically differentiated macrofossils from rocks approximately 1,000 million years ago. These fossils are described as Proterocladus antiquus new species and are interpreted as benthic siphonocladalean chlorophytes, suggesting that chlorophytes acquired macroscopic size, multicellularity and cellular differentiation nearly a billion years ago, much earlier than previously thought.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41559-020-1122-9

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • More recent analyses have tended to resolve an older LECA, with ages closer to 1 Ga being less plausible on the basis of fossils from that period that can uncontroversially be assigned to crown Archaeplastida.

    “More recent analyses have tended to resolve an older LECA, with ages closer to 1 Ga being less plausible on the basis of fossils from that period that can uncontroversially be assigned to crown Archaeplastida.”

    From ATP synthase evolution on a cross-braced dated tree of life (2023) · cites this paper as [100]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) describes a roughly one-billion-year-old fossil interpreted as a chlorophyte, which, if confirmed, would provide a minimum age for divergences within Archaeplastida. But it explicitly says that interpretation has been questioned, so the fossil cannot be described on this evidence as uncontroversially assigned. The paper discusses molecular-clock estimates for Archaeplastida, not a trend toward older estimates for LECA. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. [4]Knoll AH, Summons RE, Waldbauer JR & Zumberge JE in Evolution of Primary Producers in the Sea (eds Falkowski Paul G.& Knoll Andrew H.) 133–163 (Academic Press, 2007).
  2. [35]Hermann TN Filamentous microorganisms in the Lakhanda Formation on the Maya River. Paleontol. J 1981(2), 100– 107 (1981).
  3. [40]Fryxell GA Survival Strategies of the Algae. 144 (Cambrian University Press, 1983).
  4. [41]Komárek J. & Johansen JR in Freshwater Algae of North America (Second Edition) (eds Wehr John D., Sheath Robert G., & Kociolek J. Patrick) 135– 235 (Academic Press, 2015).
  5. [47]Deacon J. Fungal Biology 4th edition. 371 (Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 1997).
  6. [64]Bunt JS in Primary Productivity of the Biosphere (eds Lieth H. & Whittaker RH) 169–183 (Springer, 1975).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tang, Q., Pang, K., Yuan, X., & Xiao, S.
Affiliations
  • Virginia Tech (US)
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Tang, Qing
  • Xiao, Shuhai
Venue
Nature Ecology & Evolution
Published
2020-02-24
Volume
4
Issue
4
Pages
543-549
ISSN
2397-334X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3008173880
Cited by
186
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 11
FWCI
16.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Ecology & Evolution (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (41602007)
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (80NSSC18K1086)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protist diversity and phylogeny
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant Diversity and Evolution
Keywords
Chlorophyta, evolution of multicellularity, benthic algae, cell differentiation, molecular clock, Neoproterozoic, Paleozoic
MeSH terms
Fossils, Phylogeny, Diatoms, Ecosystem

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review