ArticleBMC biology2025
Beyond venomous fangs: Uloboridae spiders have lost their venom but not their toxicity.
Article in BMC biology, 2025. 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.
- Exploring Spiders Without Venom as New Sources of Peptidase Inhibitors.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Comparative venomics suggests an evolutionary adaption of spider venom from predation to defense.Communications biology · 2025Article
- Three Novel Spider Genomes Unveil Spidroin Diversification and Hox Cluster Architecture: Ryuthela nishihirai (Liphistiidae), Uloborus plumipes (Uloboridae) and Cheiracanthium punctorium (Cheiracanthiidae).Molecular ecology resources · 2025Article
- Insecticidal activity of the linear pseudoscorpion venom peptide Ammogarypin revealed by functional profiling.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVenom, one of nature's most potent secretions, has played a crucial role in the evolutionary success of many animal groups, including spiders. However, Uloboridae spiders appear to lack venom and capture their prey, unlike venomous spiders, by extensive silk-wrapping and regurgitation of digestive fluids onto the entire prey package. A prevailing hypothesis posits that toxins may have been reallocated from the venom to alternative secretions, like silk or digestive fluids. Yet, whether uloborids have retained venom toxins and the mechanisms underlying prey immobilisation remain unresolved. Here, we employed a multi-disciplinary approach to assess the absence of venom glands in Uloborus plumipes, toxin gene expression and toxicity of digestive proteins.
resultsOur findings confirm that U. plumipes lacks a venom apparatus, while neurotoxin-like transcripts were highly expressed in the digestive system. Midgut extract had comparable toxicity levels to that of the venomous Parasteatoda tepidariorum. However, no inhibitory effects on sodium nor potassium channels were observed, indicating a different toxic mechanism.
conclusionsThese findings support the hypothesis that Uloboridae spiders have lost their venom apparatus while retaining toxin-like genes. The potent toxicity of their digestive fluids, a trait conserved across spiders, likely compensate for the absence of venom, ensuring effective prey immobilisation and digestion.
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.