4.4 Review Book Chapter

The Toxicogenomic Multiverse: Convergent Recruitment of Proteins Into Animal Venoms

期刊

出版社

ANNUAL REVIEWS
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.genom.9.081307.164356

关键词

toxin; phylogeny; evolution; convergence

资金

  1. Australian Academy of Science
  2. Austrilian French Association for Science and Technology
  3. Australia and Pacific Science Foundation
  4. CASS Foundation
  5. Herman Slade Foundation
  6. University of Melbourne (Faculty of Medicine and Department of Biochemistry)
  7. Department of Innovation, Industry, and Regional Development Victoria Fellowship
  8. Australian Research Council Grants
  9. Australian Government Department of Education, Science, and Training/EGIDE
  10. International Science Linkages

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Throughout evolution, numerous proteins have been convergently recruited into the venoms of various animals, including centipedes, cephalopods, cone snails, fish, insects (several independent venom systems), platypus, scorpions, shrews, spiders, toxicoferan reptiles (lizards and snakes), and sea anemones. The protein scaffolds utilized convergently have included AVIT/colipase/prokineticin, CAP, chitinase, cystatin, defensins, hyaluronidase, Kunitz, lectin, lipocalin, natriuretic peptide, peptidase S1, phospholipase A(2), sphingomyelinase D, and SPRY. Many of these salve venom protein types have also been convergently recruited for use in the hematophagous gland secretions of invertebrates (e.g., fleas, leeches, kissing bugs, mosquitoes, and ticks) and vertebrates (e.g., vampire bats). Here, we discuss a number of over-arching structural, functional, and evolutionary generalities of the protein families from which these toxins have been frequently recruited and propose a revised and expanded working definition for venom. Given the large number of striking similarities between the protein compositions of conventional venoms and hematophagous secretions, we argue that the latter should also fall under the same definition.

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