4.7 Article

Ecological and biogeographic processes drive the proteome evolution of snake venom

Journal

GLOBAL ECOLOGY AND BIOGEOGRAPHY
Volume 30, Issue 10, Pages 1978-1989

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/geb.13359

Keywords

Elapidae; gene expression; island; productivity; toxin; Viperidae

Funding

  1. CNPq [311734/2020-0]
  2. COPES

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that environments with higher productivity contribute to more complex snake venom with higher toxin proportions, while snake species living on islands with lower resource variability tend to have less complex venom dominated by fewer toxins. The extent of isolation of an island seems to play a role in the faster fixation of specific venom compositions.
Aim The emergence of venom is an evolutionary innovation that favoured the diversification and survival of snakes. The composition of snake venoms is known in detail from venom gland proteomic data. However, there is still a gap of knowledge about the forces that lead to the expression of different toxins in different proportions in the venom cocktail across space and time. Location World. Time period Modern. Major taxa studied Elapidae and Viperidae. Methods We integrated proteomic data with phylogenetic comparative methods to understand how ecological and biogeographic processes drive the evolution of snake venom. Results We observed that more productive environments favour a more complex venom, with more toxins in similar proportions. We found that taxa that live on islands, where there is lower variability of resources, tended to present less complex venom dominated by few toxins. In such cases, the extent of an island's isolation seems to be a relevant factor for faster fixation of specific venom compositions. Main conclusion We show that ecological and biogeographic processes, which can act differentially over time and space, affect the gene expression of toxins in snake venoms.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available