4.4 Article

Venom-gland transcriptomics and venom proteomics of the giant Florida blue centipede, Scolopendra viridis

期刊

TOXICON
卷 152, 期 -, 页码 121-136

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.toxicon.2018.07.030

关键词

Centipede; Venom; Transcriptome; Proteome

资金

  1. National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program [1449440]
  2. National Science Foundation [NSF DEB-1145978, NSF DEB 1638902]
  3. Florida State University Council on Research and Creativity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The limited number of centipede venom characterizations have revealed a rich diversity of toxins, and recent work has suggested centipede toxins may be more rapidly diversifying than previously considered. Additionally, many identified challenges in venomics research, including assembly and annotation methods, toxin quantification, and the ability to provide biological or technical replicates, have yet to be addressed in centipede venom characterizations. We performed high-throughput, quantifiable transcriptomic and proteomic methods on two individual Scolopendra viridis centipedes from North Florida. We identified 39 toxins that were proteomically confirmed, and 481 nontoxins that were expressed in the venom gland of S. viridis. The most abundant toxins expressed in the venom of S. viridis belonged to calcium and potassium ion-channel toxins, venom allergens, metalloproteases, and beta-pore forming toxins. We compared our results to the previously characterized S. viridis from Morelos, Mexico, and found only five proteomically confirmed toxins in common to both localities, suggesting either extreme toxin divergence within S. viridis, or that these populations may represent entirely different species. By using multiple assembly and annotation methods, we generated a comprehensive and quantitative reference transcriptome and proteome of a Scolopendromorpha centipede species, while overcoming some of the challenges present in venomics research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据