Methods matter: Comparison of techniques used for sea anemone venom extraction

IF 2.8 Q2 TOXICOLOGY Toxicon: X Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-08 DOI:10.1016/j.toxcx.2025.100219
K.L. Kaposi , D.T. Wilson , A. Jones , J.E. Seymour
{"title":"Methods matter: Comparison of techniques used for sea anemone venom extraction","authors":"K.L. Kaposi ,&nbsp;D.T. Wilson ,&nbsp;A. Jones ,&nbsp;J.E. Seymour","doi":"10.1016/j.toxcx.2025.100219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The study of cnidarian (coral, sea anemone, and jellyfish) venom provides important evolutionary and ecological insights and unlocks vast opportunities for biodiscovery of novel compounds. The success of the field is dependent on not only the acquisition of sufficient quantities of venom but also the ability to compare venom between species and studies. To date, no direct comparison of the main techniques used to acquire sea anemone venom has been performed to determine the comparability or validity of these methods to yield venom derived from within cnidarian venom apparatus – cnidae. This study aims to compare the venom extracted from a sea anemone via three common methods: isolated cnidae, electrostimulation, and physical manipulation. Using a range of non-targeted proteomic and mass spectrometric techniques, we showed each method yielded distinct differences in both the composition and abundance of components detected for extraction method. Furthermore, few identified components were shared between each of the extraction methods. These results highlight that different venom collection methods yield vastly different results. While further investigation is required, to validate the source of each of the components from within each sample, we argue that sample collection from isolated cnidae is likely to be the most representative of true venom components.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37124,"journal":{"name":"Toxicon: X","volume":"26 ","pages":"Article 100219"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Toxicon: X","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590171025000062","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"TOXICOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The study of cnidarian (coral, sea anemone, and jellyfish) venom provides important evolutionary and ecological insights and unlocks vast opportunities for biodiscovery of novel compounds. The success of the field is dependent on not only the acquisition of sufficient quantities of venom but also the ability to compare venom between species and studies. To date, no direct comparison of the main techniques used to acquire sea anemone venom has been performed to determine the comparability or validity of these methods to yield venom derived from within cnidarian venom apparatus – cnidae. This study aims to compare the venom extracted from a sea anemone via three common methods: isolated cnidae, electrostimulation, and physical manipulation. Using a range of non-targeted proteomic and mass spectrometric techniques, we showed each method yielded distinct differences in both the composition and abundance of components detected for extraction method. Furthermore, few identified components were shared between each of the extraction methods. These results highlight that different venom collection methods yield vastly different results. While further investigation is required, to validate the source of each of the components from within each sample, we argue that sample collection from isolated cnidae is likely to be the most representative of true venom components.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
方法:海葵毒液提取工艺的比较
对刺胞动物(珊瑚、海葵和水母)毒液的研究提供了重要的进化和生态见解,并为新化合物的生物发现提供了巨大的机会。该领域的成功不仅取决于获得足够数量的毒液,而且取决于在物种和研究之间比较毒液的能力。迄今为止,尚未对获取海葵毒液的主要技术进行直接比较,以确定这些方法在刺胞动物毒液装置-刺胞科中产生毒液的可比性或有效性。本研究旨在比较三种常用的方法:分离刺胞、电刺激和物理处理从海葵中提取的毒液。使用一系列非靶向蛋白质组学和质谱技术,我们发现每种方法在提取方法中检测到的成分的组成和丰度上都存在明显差异。此外,每种提取方法之间所识别的成分很少共享。这些结果表明,不同的毒液收集方法产生的结果截然不同。虽然需要进一步的调查,以验证每个样本中每种成分的来源,但我们认为,从分离的刺胞虫中收集的样本可能是最具代表性的真实毒液成分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Toxicon: X
Toxicon: X Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-Toxicology
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
33
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
Venom variation and the future of antivenom design: Integrating population venomics, evolutionary toxinology, and precision therapeutics Quantifying venom in African snakes: Insights into protein content, yield and body size associations Biochemical characterisation and substrate-specific proteolytic diversity of venom metalloproteinases in African puff adders Adverse neurological events following botulinum toxin type A: A case series of post-injection seizures and paralysis The ‘jimble’, a southern Australia box jellyfish, Carybdea rastonii Haacke, 1886: clinical symptoms, first-aid treatments and species distribution
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1