Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25533518›Full record

ReviewToxins2014

Quo vadis venomics? A roadmap to neglected venomous invertebrates.

Bjoern Marcus von Reumont, Lahcen I Campbell, Ronald A Jenner

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Toxins, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

60 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Toxins · 2026
    Article
  4. Quantitative analysis of growth and diversification in venom data using database metrics.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Prospects and challenges of recombinant spider venom enzymes: insights fromFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025
    Article
  9. Therapeutic Potential ofBiomolecules · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

Bjoern Marcus von ReumontDepartment of Life Sciences, the Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, SW7 5BD London, UK. bmvr@arcor.de.
Lahcen I CampbellDepartment of Life Sciences, the Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, SW7 5BD London, UK. l.campbell@nhm.ac.uk.
Ronald A JennerDepartment of Life Sciences, the Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, SW7 5BD London, UK. r.jenner@nhm.ac.uk.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/K003488/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Venomics research is being revolutionized by the increased use of sensitive -omics techniques to identify venom toxins and their transcripts in both well studied and neglected venomous taxa. The study of neglected venomous taxa is necessary both for understanding the full diversity of venom systems that have evolved in the animal kingdom, and to robustly answer fundamental questions about the biology and evolution of venoms without the distorting effect that can result from the current bias introduced by some heavily studied taxa. In this review we draw the outlines of a roadmap into the diversity of poorly studied and understood venomous and putatively venomous invertebrates, which together represent tens of thousands of unique venoms. The main groups we discuss are crustaceans, flies, centipedes, non-spider and non-scorpion arachnids, annelids, molluscs, platyhelminths, nemerteans, and echinoderms. We review what is known about the morphology of the venom systems in these groups, the composition of their venoms, and the bioactivities of the venoms to provide researchers with an entry into a large and scattered literature. We conclude with a short discussion of some important methodological aspects that have come to light with the recent use of new -omics techniques in the study of venoms.

Indexed as

AnimalsEvolution, MolecularInvertebratesPhylogenyScorpionsSpidersVenomsVenoms

Identifiers

PMID25533518
PMCPMC4280546

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.