2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.toxicon.2015.02.015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The transcriptomic and proteomic basis for the evolution of a novel venom phenotype within the Timber Rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

9
69
0
2

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 74 publications
(80 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
9
69
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The ilr transformation for statistical analysis of venom samples was recently employed by Margres et al [20] to compare venom toxin expression variation between different populations of two nearly sympatric snake species, C. adamanteus and Micrurus fulvius. The same group has also applied Clr transformation of the raw percentages of toxin transcripts to compare toxin-class expression between adult and juvenile type A (neurotoxic venom) and type B (hemorrhagic venom) Timber rattlesnake (C. horridus) specimens [82], and to test for changes in venom composition that take place in the first few weeks of life of C. adamanteus and C. horridus neonates, after the postnatal shedding event [83].…”
Section: Comparing Venom Proteomes: Removing the Constant-sum Constraintmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The ilr transformation for statistical analysis of venom samples was recently employed by Margres et al [20] to compare venom toxin expression variation between different populations of two nearly sympatric snake species, C. adamanteus and Micrurus fulvius. The same group has also applied Clr transformation of the raw percentages of toxin transcripts to compare toxin-class expression between adult and juvenile type A (neurotoxic venom) and type B (hemorrhagic venom) Timber rattlesnake (C. horridus) specimens [82], and to test for changes in venom composition that take place in the first few weeks of life of C. adamanteus and C. horridus neonates, after the postnatal shedding event [83].…”
Section: Comparing Venom Proteomes: Removing the Constant-sum Constraintmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With some exceptions (Margres et al, 2015a; Margres et al, 2016b), snake venoms have been found to evolve rapidly under positive selection within and between species, involving both changes in toxin expression patterns (Gibbs, Sanz & Calvete, 2009; Rokyta et al, 2015; Margres et al, 2015a; Margres et al, 2015b) and protein sequences (Lynch, 2007; Gibbs & Rossiter, 2008). This rapid evolution is thought to result from the evolutionarily critical roles of venom in feeding and defense (Jansa & Voss, 2011) and the antagonistic coevolutionary interactions with predators and prey (Biardi, Chien & Coss, 2005; Biardi et al, 2011).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Snake venoms are modular, polygenic traits that are critical for feeding (Biardi et al, 2000) and defense (Jansa and Voss, 2011), resulting in strong selective pressures on the genes encoding venom components at the sequence (Kordiš and Gubenšek, 2000; Lynch, 2007; Gibbs and Rossiter, 2008; Juárez et al, 2008; Rokyta et al, 2011; Margres et al, 2013; Vonk et al, 2013) and expression levels (Daltry et al, 1996; Barlow et al, 2009; Rokyta et al, 2015; Margres et al, 2016). These strong selective pressures are believed to be responsible for the extensive interspecific (Mackessy, 2008; Sanz et al, 2008; Rokyta et al, 2013; McGivern et al, 2014), intraspecific (Daltry et al, 1996; Creer et al, 2003; Gibbs et al, 2009; Boldrini-França et al, 2010; Margres et al, 2015a, 2016; Rokyta et al, 2015), and ontogenetic venom variation (Mackessy, 1988; Mackessy et al, 2003; Guércio et al, 2006; Madrigal et al, 2012; Zelanis et al, 2012; Durban et al, 2013; Margres et al, 2015b; Wray et al, 2015) because venom variation has been shown to be associated with dietary shifts (Daltry et al, 1996; Barlow et al, 2009).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These strong selective pressures are believed to be responsible for the extensive interspecific (Mackessy, 2008; Sanz et al, 2008; Rokyta et al, 2013; McGivern et al, 2014), intraspecific (Daltry et al, 1996; Creer et al, 2003; Gibbs et al, 2009; Boldrini-França et al, 2010; Margres et al, 2015a, 2016; Rokyta et al, 2015), and ontogenetic venom variation (Mackessy, 1988; Mackessy et al, 2003; Guércio et al, 2006; Madrigal et al, 2012; Zelanis et al, 2012; Durban et al, 2013; Margres et al, 2015b; Wray et al, 2015) because venom variation has been shown to be associated with dietary shifts (Daltry et al, 1996; Barlow et al, 2009). These spatial and temporal shifts in resource use presumably lead to shifts in phenotypic optima and should be accompanied by functional divergence (Jensen et al, 2012; Margres et al, 2015b).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%