ArticleToxicon: X2025
Methods matter: Comparison of techniques used for sea anemone venom extraction.
Article in Toxicon: X, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study of cnidarian (coral, sea anemone, and jellyfish) venom provides important evolutionary and ecological insights and unlocks vast opportunities for biodiscovery of novel compounds. The success of the field is dependent on not only the acquisition of sufficient quantities of venom but also the ability to compare venom between species and studies. To date, no direct comparison of the main techniques used to acquire sea anemone venom has been performed to determine the comparability or validity of these methods to yield venom derived from within cnidarian venom apparatus - cnidae. This study aims to compare the venom extracted from a sea anemone via three common methods: isolated cnidae, electrostimulation, and physical manipulation. Using a range of non-targeted proteomic and mass spectrometric techniques, we showed each method yielded distinct differences in both the composition and abundance of components detected for extraction method. Furthermore, few identified components were shared between each of the extraction methods. These results highlight that different venom collection methods yield vastly different results. While further investigation is required, to validate the source of each of the components from within each sample, we argue that sample collection from isolated cnidae is likely to be the most representative of true venom components.
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.