Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 312

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evolution of separate predation- and defence-evoked venoms in carnivorous cone snails

Open access
Dutertre, Sébastien, Jin, Ai-Hua, Vetter, Irina, Hamilton, Brett, Sunagar, Kartik, Lavergne, Vincent, Dutertre, Valentin, Fry, Bryan G., Antunes, Agostinho, Venter, Deon J., Alewood, Paul F., Lewis, Richard J.·2014·Nature Communications

Abstract

Venomous animals are thought to inject the same combination of toxins for both predation and defence, presumably exploiting conserved target pharmacology across prey and predators. Remarkably, cone snails can rapidly switch between distinct venoms in response to predatory or defensive stimuli. Here, we show that the defence-evoked venom of Conus geographus contains high levels of paralytic toxins that potently block neuromuscular receptors, consistent with its lethal effects on humans. In contrast, C. geographus predation-evoked venom contains prey-specific toxins mostly inactive at human targets. Predation- and defence-evoked venoms originate from the distal and proximal regions of the venom duct, respectively, explaining how different stimuli can generate two distinct venoms. A specialized defensive envenomation strategy is widely evolved across worm, mollusk and fish-hunting cone snails. We propose that defensive toxins, originally evolved in ancestral worm-hunting cone snails to protect against cephalopod and fish predation, have been repurposed in predatory venoms to facilitate diversification to fish and mollusk diets. Marine cone snails use venom for defence and predation. Here, Dutertre et al.show that cone snails produce structurally and functionally distinct venoms for each purpose and that defence toxins are potent on fish and mammalian targets, suggesting that they have evolved specifically for protection.

Overview

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/ncomms4521

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Dutertre, S., Jin, A.-H., Vetter, I., Hamilton, B., Sunagar, K., Lavergne, V., Dutertre, V., Fry, B. G., Antunes, A., Venter, D. J., Alewood, P. F., & Lewis, R. J.
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2014-03-24
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
3521-3521
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1966349755
Cited by
312
References
3
FWCI
17.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.