ArticleToxins2018
Botulinum Neurotoxin Diversity from a Gene-Centered View.
Article in Toxins, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Foodborne Botulism Caused byMicroorganisms · 2025Article
- Whole genome sequencing of neurotoxin-producingFrontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Review
- Approaching pathogenicbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Potential Risk of Botulinum Neurotoxin -producing Clostridia Occurrence in Canned Fish.Journal of veterinary research · 2022Article
- Article
- Novel Putative Transposable Element Associated with the Subtype E5 Botulinum Toxin Gene Cluster of NeurotoxigenicInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Phylogenetic determinants of toxin gene distribution in genomes of Brevibacillus laterosporus.Genomics · 2020Article
- Why Are Botulinum Neurotoxin-Producing Bacteria So Diverse and Botulinum Neurotoxins So Toxic?Toxins · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Botulinum neurotoxins (BoNTs) rank amongst the most potent toxins known. The factors responsible for the emergence of the many known and yet unknown BoNT variants remain elusive. It also remains unclear why anaerobic bacteria that are widely distributed in our environment and normally do not pose a threat to humans, produce such deadly toxins. Even the possibility of accidental toxicity to humans has not been excluded. Here, I review the notion that BoNTs may have specifically evolved to target vertebrates. Considering the extremely complex molecular architecture of the toxins, which enables them to reach the bloodstream, to recognize and enter neurons, and to block neurotransmitter release, it seems highly unlikely that BoNT toxicity to vertebrates is a coincidence. The carcass⁻maggot cycle provides a plausible explanation for a natural role of the toxins: to enable mass reproduction of bacteria, spores, and toxins, using toxin-unaffected invertebrates, such as fly maggots, as the vectors. There is no clear correlation between toxigenicity and a selective advantage of clostridia in their natural habitat. Possibly, non-toxigenic strains profit from carcasses resulting from the action of toxigenic strains. Alternatively, a gene-centered view of toxin evolution would also explain this observation. Toxin-coding mobile genetic elements may have evolved as selfish genes, promoting their own propagation, similar to commensal viruses, using clostridia and other bacteria as the host. Research addressing the role of BoNTs in nature and the origin of toxin variability goes hand in hand with the identification of new toxin variants and the design of improved toxin variants for medical applications. These research directions may also reveal yet unknown natural antidotes against these extremely potent neurotoxins.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.