Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32550589›Full record

ArticleToxicon: X2020

From molecules to macroevolution: Venom as a model system for evolutionary biology across levels of life.

Kevin Arbuckle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Toxicon: X, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Phylogenetically diverse diets favor more complex venoms in North American pitvipers.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. 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.

Kevin ArbuckleDepartment of Biosciences, College of Science, Swansea University, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biological systems are inherently hierarchical. Consequently, any field which aims to understand an aspect of biology holistically requires investigations at each level of the hierarchy of life, and venom research is no exception. This article aims to illustrate the structure of the field in light of a 'levels of life' perspective. In doing so, I highlight how traditional fields and approaches fit into this structure as focussing on describing levels or investigating links between levels, and emphasise where implicit assumptions are made due to lack of direct information. Taking a 'levels of life' perspective to venom research enables us to understand the complementarity of different research programmes and identify avenues for future research. Moreover, it provides a broader view that, in itself, shows how new questions can be addressed. For instance, understanding how adaptations develop and function from molecular to organismal scales, and what the consequences are of those adaptations at scales from molecular to macroevolutionary, is a general question relevant to a great deal of biology. As a trait which is molecular in nature and has clearer and more direct links between genotype and phenotype than many other traits, venom provides a relatively simple system to address such questions. Furthermore, because venom is also diverse at each level of life, the complexity within the hierarchical structure provides variation that enables powerful analytical approaches to answering questions. As a result, venom provides an excellent model system for understanding big questions in evolutionary biology.

Indexed as

Clinical implicationsEvolutionary ecologyOrganismal vs molecular perspectivesVenom biologyVenomics

Identifiers

PMID32550589
PMCPMC7285901

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.