ABSTRACT
Introduction: Despite an extensive published literature, skepticism over the claim of original biochemicals including proteins preserved in the fossil record persists and the issue remains controversial. Workers using many different techniques including mass spectrometry, X-ray, electron microscopy and optical spectroscopic techniques, have attempted to verify proteinaceous or other biochemicals that appear endogenous to fossils found throughout the geologic column.
Areas covered: This paper presents a review of the relevant literature published over the last 50 years. A comparative survey of the reported techniques used is also given.
Expert opinion: Morphological and molecular investigations show that original biochemistry is geologically extensive, geographically global, and taxonomically wide-ranging. The survival of endogenous organics in fossils remains the subject of widespread and increasing research investigation.
Article highlights
Over 85 papers containing reports of original biochemistry including proteins in fossils are reviewed in a comprehensive survey of the published scientific literature going back over the last 53 years.
The number of publications has increased rapidly in the last 10 years indicating a surge in interest in this research area.
Although reports of original (endogenous) biochemistry from the Cenozoic period are considered, the focus of the review is on claims of original biochemistry from the Mesozoic, Paleozoic and lower levels which are more difficult to explain.
Preservational ideas are considered and reviewed.
This review of the published scientific literature reveals that apparently original biochemistry in fossils is geologically extensive, geographically global and taxonomically wide ranging.
Declaration of interest
The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.
Reviewer disclosures
Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.