Comparative transcriptome analyses of venom glands from three scorpionfishes

Investigation of the estuarine stonefish (Synanceia horrida) venom composition

“…Interestingly, there were transcriptome ORFs that showed homology to a broad range of putative animal toxin families including various enzymes, proteins promoting inflammation or hemostatic disruption, neurotoxins, and enzyme inhibitors. This was similar to the venom gland transcriptomes of three scorpionfish species, which matched transcripts to putative toxins such as venom metalloproteinases, translationally controlled tumor proteins, and neuropeptides from anemone and sea snails [23]. However, only a small number of these families were actually identified in the S. horrida venom through proteomic methods.…”

“…The sequencing of the venom gland of the more closely related teleost fish, Pelteobagrus fulvidraco (Chinese yellow catfish), resulted in 210,413 contigs [24]. The number of contigs was very close to that of the scorpionfish Scorpaenopsis cirrosa, though considerably more than the numbers found in other scorpionfish species S. neglecta and S. possi [23]. Whereas there was a large range of contig lengths identified (224-17,970) the average length was relatively short at 1088, less than the average contig lengths for either P. amandae or P. falkneri [28], but longer than the average length of the three scorpionfish species [23].…”

“…Recently, transcriptomic methods combined with proteomic data have been used to analyse the venoms from animals such as snakes, spiders, and cone snails [22]. However, at this point fewer than ten venomous fish species have undergone transcriptomic analysis, and only three of these integrated with proteomic data to evaluate venom composition [23][24][25][26][27][28]. Those with corresponding proteomic data include a ray species [26], one catfish species [24], and a fang blenny species.…”

“…Those with corresponding proteomic data include a ray species [26], one catfish species [24], and a fang blenny species. While a number of putative venom proteins were identified in the venom gland transcriptomes and proteomes no known fish toxins were found, save for the well known pore-forming toxins related to stonustoxin that were identified in three scorpionfish transcriptomes [23]. Previously, the venom gland transcripts of the toadfish Thalassophryne nattereri were analysed using expressed sequence tags, although the only toxin proteins identified were natterins which had previously been discovered in the venom [29], and a Ctype lectin (nattectin), which was identified in the venom after further study and characterised [30].…”

The perspective of fish venom: An overview of the physiology, evolution, molecular and genetics

“…Karatoxin 110kDa It is well known that fish venom is still largely unexplored as reported by (Silva et al, 2018;Xie et al, 2019;Gorman et al, 2020;Campos et al, 2021;Lopes-Ferreira et al, 2022) and in previous sections of this paper. Because there are few fish toxin sequences available as references, most of them are from Scorpaenidae and Synanceiidae families, it is challenging to research fish toxins and to create quick and effective techniques for wide exploration of toxin proteins or genes (Xie et al, 2017).…”