ArticleVeterinary medicine and science2026
Immunological Cross-Reactivity and Neutralizing Efficacy of Antivenom Against Five Medically Important Iranian Viper Venoms.
Article in Veterinary medicine and science, 2026. 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.
- Immunological Cross-Reactivity and Neutralizing Efficacy of Antivenom Against Five Medically Important Iranian Viper Venoms.Veterinary medicine and science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAntivenom efficacy relies on the venom antigen composition and the range of antibody cross-reactivity. This research compared the biochemical profiles of five medically relevant Iranian vipers, Gloydius caucasicus, Pseudocerastes persicus, Montivipera raddei, Echis carinatus, and Macrovipera lebetina, and compared the cross-reactivity and neutralisation efficacy of laboratory-prepared monovalent.
methodsVenom was characterised using SDS-PAGE and reverse-phase HPLC (RP-HPLC). Monovalent antisera were raised in rabbits against each species, and a separate group was immunised with a mixture of all five venoms to produce a polyvalent antivenom. Indirect ELISA quantified homologous and heterologous binding, and in vivo assays assessed neutralisation efficacy against both homologous and heterologous venoms.
resultsAmong the five viper species studied, G. caucasicus venom was the most toxic and that of P. persicus the least. Under non-reducing SDS-PAGE, all venoms displayed three main protein bands of approximately 20 kDa, 50 kDa and 130-150 kDa with variable intensities. Following reduction, an intense ∼15 kDa band appeared in all the samples. RP-HPLC revealed nearly identical, simple chromatograms for E. carinatus and M. raddei, a more diverse profile for M. lebetina, moderate complexity for G. caucasicus, and a distinct hydrophilic peak for P. persicus. Monovalent antivenoms showed strongest binding to homologous venoms but variable heterologous cross-reactivity, with M. raddei and P. persicus exhibiting the broadest spectra and G. caucasicus the narrowest, while the polyvalent antivenom bound broadly across all species. The antivenoms against M. lebetina and M. raddei neutralised P. persicus venom at 1.17 mg/mL and 1.07 mg/mL, respectively, while P. persicus antivenom neutralised M. raddei (0.49 mg/mL) and E. carinatus (0.66 mg/mL). G. caucasicus antivenom was only effective against its homologous venom.
conclusionThis study demonstrated general patterns among Iranian viper venoms, but variable LD
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.