ArticleBMC genomics2023
Systematic dissection of genomic features determining the vast diversity of conotoxins.
Article in BMC genomics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- From Marine Peptides to Oncology: The Therapeutic Potential of Conotoxins in Cancer Treatment.Chemistry & biodiversity · 2026Review
- Comparative analysis of venom genes in the chromosome-level genomes of two closely related cone snails.BMC genomics · 2026Article
- Molecular Insights into the Marine GastropodInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- In Silico Conotoxin Studies: Progress and Prospects.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundConus, a highly diverse species of venomous predators, has attracted significant attention in neuroscience and new drug development due to their rich collection of neuroactive peptides called conotoxins. Recent advancements in transcriptome, proteome, and genome analyses have facilitated the identification of conotoxins within Conus' venom glands, providing insights into the genetic features and evolutionary patterns of conotoxin genes. However, the underlying mechanism behind the extraordinary hypervariability of conotoxins remains largely unknown.
resultsWe analyzed the transcriptomes of 34 Conus species, examining various tissues such as the venom duct, venom bulb, and salivary gland, leading to the identification of conotoxin genes. Genetic variation analysis revealed that a subset of these genes (15.78% of the total) in Conus species underwent positive selection (Ka/Ks > 1, p < 0.01). Additionally, we reassembled and annotated the genome of C. betulinus, uncovering 221 conotoxin-encoding genes. These genes primarily consisted of three exons, with a significant portion showing high transcriptional activity in the venom ducts. Importantly, the flanking regions and adjacent introns of conotoxin genes exhibited a higher prevalence of transposon elements, suggesting their potential contribution to the extensive variability observed in conotoxins. Furthermore, we detected genome duplication in C. betulinus, which likely contributed to the expansion of conotoxin gene numbers. Interestingly, our study also provided evidence of introgression among Conus species, indicating that interspecies hybridization may have played a role in shaping the evolution of diverse conotoxin genes.
conclusionsThis study highlights the impact of adaptive evolution and introgressive hybridization on the genetic diversity of conotoxin genes and the evolution of Conus. We also propose a hypothesis suggesting that transposable elements might significantly contribute to the remarkable diversity observed in conotoxins. These findings not only enhance our understanding of peptide genetic diversity but also present a novel approach for peptide bioengineering.
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.