Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22069579›Full record

ReviewToxins2010

Spider-venom peptides as therapeutics.

Natalie J Saez, Sebastian Senff, Jonas E Jensen, Sing Yan Er, Volker Herzig, Lachlan D Rash, Glenn F King

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Toxins, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 134 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
134citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

134 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 293 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Prospects and challenges of recombinant spider venom enzymes: insights fromFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

74 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Natalie J SaezInstitute for Molecular Bioscience, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, 4072, Australia. n.saez@imb.uq.edu.au
Sebastian Senff
Jonas E Jensen
Sing Yan Er
Volker Herzig
Lachlan D Rash
Glenn F King
The University of Queensland · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spiders are the most successful venomous animals and the most abundant terrestrial predators. Their remarkable success is due in large part to their ingenious exploitation of silk and the evolution of pharmacologically complex venoms that ensure rapid subjugation of prey. Most spider venoms are dominated by disulfide-rich peptides that typically have high affinity and specificity for particular subtypes of ion channels and receptors. Spider venoms are conservatively predicted to contain more than 10 million bioactive peptides, making them a valuable resource for drug discovery. Here we review the structure and pharmacology of spider-venom peptides that are being used as leads for the development of therapeutics against a wide range of pathophysiological conditions including cardiovascular disorders, chronic pain, inflammation, and erectile dysfunction.

Indexed as

AnalgesicsAnimalsAnti-Arrhythmia AgentsAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntifungal AgentsAntimalarialsCystine Knot MotifsErectile DysfunctionHumansMalePeptidesSpider VenomsAnalgesicsAnti-Arrhythmia AgentsAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntifungal AgentsAntimalarialsPeptidesSpider Venomscystine knotdrug discoverydrugspeptidespider venomtherapeutics

Identifiers

PMID22069579
PMCPMC3153181
OpenAlexW1989299599

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.