Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32646372›Full record

ArticleBMC evolutionary biology2020

What makes a fang? Phylogenetic and ecological controls on tooth evolution in rear-fanged snakes.

Erin P Westeen, Andrew M Durso, Michael C Grundler, Daniel L Rabosky, Alison R Davis Rabosky

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC evolutionary biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Snake venom disintegrins update: insights about new findings.The journal of venomous animals and toxins including tropical diseases · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Plicidentine and the repeated origins of snake venom fangs.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Erin P WesteenDepartment of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management & Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. ewesteen@berkeley.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-7685-4588
Andrew M DursoDepartment of Biological Sciences, Florida Gulf Coast University, Ft. Myers, FL, USA.
Michael C GrundlerDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology & Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Daniel L RaboskyDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology & Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Alison R Davis RaboskyDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology & Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
University of Michigan · USFlorida Gulf Coast University · USMuseum of Vertebrate Zoology · US

Funding

David and Lucile Packard Foundation NANational Science Foundation NSF DBI-1701714University of Michigan Startup funds
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFangs are a putative key innovation that revolutionized prey capture and feeding in snakes, and - along with their associated venom phenotypes - have made snakes perhaps the most medically-significant vertebrate animals. Three snake clades are known for their forward-positioned fangs, and these clades (Elapidae, Viperidae, and Atractaspidinae) contain the majority of snakes that are traditionally considered venomous. However, many other snakes are "rear-fanged": they possess potentially venom-delivering teeth situated at the rear end of the upper jaw. Quantification of fang phenotypes - and especially those of rear-fanged species - has proved challenging or impossible owing to the small size and relative rarity of many such snakes. Consequently, it has been difficult to understand the evolutionary history of both venom and prey-capture strategies across extant snakes. We quantified variation in the dentition of 145 colubriform ("advanced") snake species using microCT scanning and compared dental characters with ecological data on species' diet and prey capture method(s) to understand broader patterns in snake fang evolution.

resultsDental traits such as maxilla length, tooth number, and fang size show strong phylogenetic signal across Colubriformes. We find extreme heterogeneity and evolutionary lability in the rear-fanged phenotype in colubrid (colubrine, dipsadine, and natricine lineages) and lamprophiid snakes, in contrast to relative uniformity in the front fanged phenotypes of other groups (vipers and, to a lesser extent, elapids). Fang size and position are correlated with venom-use in vipers, elapids, and colubrid snakes, with the latter group shifting fangs anteriorly by shortening the entire maxillary bone. We find that maxilla length and tooth number may also be correlated with the evolution of dietary specialization. Finally, an ancestral state reconstruction suggests that fang loss is a recurring phenomenon in colubrid snakes, likely accompanied by shifts in diet and prey capture mode.

conclusionsOur study provides a framework for quantifying the complex morphologies associated with venom use in snakes. Our results suggest that fang phenotypes, and particularly the rear-fanged phenotype, in snakes are both diverse and labile, facilitating a wide range of ecological strategies and contributing to spectacular radiations of these organisms in tropical and subtropical biomes worldwide.

Indexed as

Ecological and Environmental PhenomenaPhylogenyAnimalsDietPredatory BehaviorPrincipal Component AnalysisSnakesSpecies SpecificityTomography, X-Ray ComputedToothComputed tomographyDentitionDietary ecologyEvolutionary ecologyMacroevolutionMorphologySquamate reptiles

Identifiers

PMID32646372
PMCPMC7346461
OpenAlexW3041223151

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.