Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23525661›Full record

ReviewCellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS2013

The insecticidal potential of venom peptides.

Jennifer J Smith, Volker Herzig, Glenn F King, Paul F Alewood

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed
12.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

53 citing papers in PubMed, 112 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Therapeutic Promise and Biotechnological Prospects ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Insects · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. The Deadly Toxin Arsenal of the Tree-Dwelling Australian Funnel-Web Spiders.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jennifer J SmithInstitute for Molecular Bioscience, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia.
Volker Herzig
Glenn F King
Paul F Alewood
University of Queensland · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pest insect species are a burden to humans as they destroy crops and serve as vectors for a wide range of diseases including malaria and dengue. Chemical insecticides are currently the dominant approach for combating these pests. However, the de-registration of key classes of chemical insecticides due to their perceived ecological and human health risks in combination with the development of insecticide resistance in many pest insect populations has created an urgent need for improved methods of insect pest control. The venoms of arthropod predators such as spiders and scorpions are a promising source of novel insecticidal peptides that often have different modes of action to extant chemical insecticides. These peptides have been optimized via a prey-predator arms race spanning hundreds of millions of years to target specific types of insect ion channels and receptors. Here we review the current literature on insecticidal venom peptides, with a particular focus on their structural and pharmacological diversity, and discuss their potential for deployment as insecticides.

Indexed as

AnimalsArthropod VenomsHumansInsectaInsect ControlInsecticidesPeptidesArthropod VenomsInsecticidesPeptides

Identifiers

PMID23525661
PMCPMC11114029
OpenAlexW1994608226

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.