The DOI matches its Crossref record; 114 of the 114 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Review and Database of Snake Venom Proteomes
Open accessAbstract
Advances in the last decade combining transcriptomics with established proteomics methods have made possible rapid identification and quantification of protein families in snake venoms. Although over 100 studies have been published, the value of this information is increased when it is collated, allowing rapid assimilation and evaluation of evolutionary trends, geographical variation, and possible medical implications. This review brings together all compositional studies of snake venom proteomes published in the last decade. Compositional studies were identified for 132 snake species: 42 from 360 (12%) Elapidae (elapids), 20 from 101 (20%) Viperinae (true vipers), 65 from 239 (27%) Crotalinae (pit vipers), and five species of non-front-fanged snakes. Approximately 90% of their total venom composition consisted of eight protein families for elapids, 11 protein families for viperines and ten protein families for crotalines. There were four dominant protein families: phospholipase A2s (the most common across all front-fanged snakes), metalloproteases, serine proteases and three-finger toxins. There were six secondary protein families: cysteine-rich secretory proteins, l-amino acid oxidases, kunitz peptides, C-type lectins/snaclecs, disintegrins and natriuretic peptides. Elapid venoms contained mostly three-finger toxins and phospholipase A2s and viper venoms metalloproteases, phospholipase A2s and serine proteases. Although 63 protein families were identified, more than half were present in <5% of snake species studied and always in low abundance. The importance of these minor component proteins remains unknown.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Diet and snake venom evolution
Daltry, J. C., Wüster, W., & Thorpe, R. S. (1996) · Nature · doi:10.1038/379537a0 · Cited by 674
Fry, B. G. (2005) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.3228405 · Cited by 486
Barlow, A., Pook, C. E., Harrison, R. A., & Wüster, W. (2009) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.0048 · Cited by 372
Pyron, R. A., Burbrink, F. T., Colli, G. R., de Oca, A. N. M., Vitt, L. J., Kuczynski, C. A., & Wiens, J. J. (2011) · Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2010.11.006 · Cited by 321
The venom-gland transcriptome of the eastern diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus)
Rokyta, D. R., Lemmon, A. R., Margres, M. J., & Aronow, K. (2012) · BMC Genomics · doi:10.1186/1471-2164-13-312 · Cited by 306
Ophidian envenomation strategies and the role of purines
Aird, S. D. (2002) · Toxicon · doi:10.1016/s0041-0101(01)00232-x · Cited by 300
Harvey, A. L. (2001) · Toxicon · doi:10.1016/s0041-0101(00)00162-8 · Cited by 254
Lynch, V. J. (2007) · BMC Evolutionary Biology · doi:10.1186/1471-2148-7-2 · Cited by 245
Calvete, J. J., Sanz, L., Pérez, A., Borges, A., Vargas, A. M., Lomonte, B., Angulo, Y., Gutiérrez, J. M., Chalkidis, H. M., Mourão, R. H. V., et al. (2011) · Journal of Proteomics · doi:10.1016/j.jprot.2011.01.003 · Cited by 224
Petras, D., Sanz, L., Segura, Á., Herrera, M., Villalta, M., Solano, D., Vargas, M., León, G., Warrell, D. A., Theakston, R. D. G., et al. (2011) · Journal of Proteome Research · doi:10.1021/pr101040f · Cited by 216
Cited by
Causes and Consequences of Snake Venom Variation
Casewell, N. R., Jackson, T. N. W., Laustsen, A. H., & Sunagar, K. (2020) · Trends in Pharmacological Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tips.2020.05.006 · Cited by 396
Bittenbinder, M. A., van Thiel, J., Cardoso, F. C., Casewell, N. R., Gutiérrez, J.-M., Kool, J., & Vonk, F. J. (2024) · Communications Biology · doi:10.1038/s42003-024-06019-6 · Cited by 132
Senji Laxme, R. R., Attarde, S., Khochare, S., Suranse, V., Martin, G., Casewell, N. R., Whitaker, R., & Sunagar, K. (2021) · PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases · doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0009150 · Cited by 101
Gutiérrez, J. M., Lewin, M. R., Williams, D. J., & Lomonte, B. (2020) · Toxins · doi:10.3390/toxins12020131 · Cited by 92
Hall, S. R., Rasmussen, S. A., Crittenden, E., Dawson, C. A., Bartlett, K. E., Westhorpe, A. P., Albulescu, L.-O., Kool, J., Gutiérrez, J. M., & Casewell, N. R. (2023) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-43510-w · Cited by 63
Metadata
- Authors
- Tasoulis, T., & Isbister, G.
- Venue
- Toxins
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2017-09-18
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 290
- ISSN
- 2072-6651 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2754620869
- Cited by
- 616
- References
- 114
- FWCI
- 23.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Review and Database of Snake Venom Proteomes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/toxins9090290
- The paper
- Tasoulis, T., & Isbister, G. (2017). A Review and Database of Snake Venom Proteomes. Toxins. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins9090290
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.
