Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30012955›Full record

ReviewToxins2018

Studying Smaller and Neglected Organisms in Modern Evolutionary Venomics Implementing RNASeq (Transcriptomics)-A Critical Guide.

Björn Marcus von Reumont

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Toxins, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Toxins · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Cnidarian toxins: omics approaches and recombinant proteins.The journal of venomous animals and toxins including tropical diseases · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Björn Marcus von ReumontJustus Liebig University of Giessen, Institute for Insect Biotechnology, Heinrich Buff Ring 58, 35392 Giessen, Germany. bmvr@arcor.de.ORCID 0000-0002-7462-8226
Natural History Museum · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Venoms are evolutionary key adaptations that species employ for defense, predation or competition. However, the processes and forces that drive the evolution of venoms and their toxin components remain in many aspects understudied. In particular, the venoms of many smaller, neglected (mostly invertebrate) organisms are not characterized in detail, especially with modern methods. For the majority of these taxa, even their biology is only vaguely known. Modern evolutionary venomics addresses the question of how venoms evolve by applying a plethora of -omics methods. These recently became so sensitive and enhanced that smaller, neglected organisms are now more easily accessible to comparatively study their venoms. More knowledge about these taxa is essential to better understand venom evolution in general. The methodological core pillars of integrative evolutionary venomics are genomics, transcriptomics and proteomics, which are complemented by functional morphology and the field of protein synthesis and activity tests. This manuscript focuses on transcriptomics (or RNASeq) as one toolbox to describe venom evolution in smaller, neglected taxa. It provides a hands-on guide that discusses a generalized RNASeq workflow, which can be adapted, accordingly, to respective projects. For neglected and small taxa, generalized recommendations are difficult to give and conclusions need to be made individually from case to case. In the context of evolutionary venomics, this overview highlights critical points, but also promises of RNASeq analyses. Methodologically, these concern the impact of read processing, possible improvements by perfoming multiple and merged assemblies, and adequate quantification of expressed transcripts. Readers are guided to reappraise their hypotheses on venom evolution in smaller organisms and how robustly these are testable with the current transcriptomics toolbox. The complementary approach that combines particular proteomics but also genomics with transcriptomics is discussed as well. As recently shown, comparative proteomics is, for example, most important in preventing false positive identifications of possible toxin transcripts. Finally, future directions in transcriptomics, such as applying 3rd generation sequencing strategies to overcome difficulties by short read assemblies, are briefly addressed.

Indexed as

AnimalsEvolution, MolecularGenomicsSequence Analysis, RNATranscriptomeVenomsVenomsassemblyevolutionary venomicspooled samplesproteomicsread mappingtoxin expression leveltranscriptomics

Identifiers

PMID30012955
PMCPMC6070909
OpenAlexW2883696570

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.