Venom Gland Transcriptomic and Proteomic Analyses of the Enigmatic Scorpion Superstitionia donensis (Scorpiones: Superstitioniidae), with Insights on the Evolution of Its Venom Components

Abstract

Venom gland transcriptomic and proteomic analyses have improved our knowledge on the diversity of the heterogeneous components present in scorpion venoms. However, most of these studies have focused on species from the family Buthidae. To gain insights into the molecular diversity of the venom components of scorpions belonging to the family Superstitioniidae, one of the neglected scorpion families, we performed a transcriptomic and proteomic analyses for the species Superstitionia donensis. The total mRNA extracted from the venom glands of two specimens was subjected to massive sequencing by the Illumina protocol, and a total of 219,073 transcripts were generated. We annotated 135 transcripts putatively coding for peptides with identity to known venom components available from different protein databases. Fresh venom collected by electrostimulation was analyzed by LC-MS/MS allowing the identification of 26 distinct components with sequences matching counterparts from the transcriptomic analysis. In addition, the phylogenetic affinities of the found putative calcins, scorpines, La1-like peptides and potassium channel κ toxins were analyzed. The first three components are often reported as ubiquitous in the venom of different families of scorpions. Our results suggest that, at least calcins and scorpines, could be used as molecular markers in phylogenetic studies of scorpion venoms.

Transcriptomic and Proteomic Analyses Reveal the Diversity of Venom Components from the Vaejovid Scorpion Serradigitus gertschi

“…This has been documented in previous proteomic and transcriptomic analyses. The toxic fraction in most buthids is high (ranging from 66% to 85% of the venomous peptides reported [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ]), while in non-buthid scorpions, it is much lower (from 9% to 20% [ 8 , 9 , 14 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ]).…”

“…Given the above, and that S. gertschi is a non-buthid species, it came as a surprise that the subgroup of transcripts potentially coding for ion channel toxins was the most diverse in the transcriptome by a significant extent (31.2% of all transcripts, see Figure 2 ). In previous high-throughput analyses of non-buthid species, this subgroup was either outnumbered by other venom components (as in T. atrox and M. gertschi , for which enzymes were the most diverse [ 8 , 18 ]) or on par with those other components (as in Superstitionia donensis and P. schwenkmeyeri [ 9 , 19 ]. The reason for this observation remains to be determined.…”

“…Initially, the scorpine-like peptides were classified as members of the β-KScTx family; however, they are now considered as an independent subfamily of the KScTx [ 19 ]. They are long peptides containing 59–75 amino acids stabilized by disulfide linkages [ 33 ] with two domains: one showing cytolytic activity, and another with K + channel-blocking properties [ 34 ].…”

An economic dilemma between weapon systems may explain an arachno-atypical venom in wasp spiders (Argiope bruennichi)

“…The A. bruennichi IGFBP is closely related to a protein found in the venom of the tiger wandering spider Cupiennius salei (Kuhn-Nentwig et al, 2011). Such proteins are commonly found in arachnid venoms but also in scorpions (Superstitia donensis, Hadrurus spadix and Centruroides hentzi) and ticks of the genus Amblyomma (Santibanez-Lopez et al, 2016;Esteves et al, 2017;Rokyta and Ward, 2017;Ward et al, 2017). A related protein is present in the venom of A.…”

The Use of Imaging Mass Spectrometry to Study Peptide Toxin Distribution in Australian Sea Anemones

“…This strategy has been applied successfully to venomous animals with a centralised venom delivery system (venom sac or gland), such as cone snails, spiders, scorpions, and centipedes. [4][5][6][7] It has been used less frequently with cnidarians, which lack a centralised delivery system. [8] For cnidarians, traditional toxin isolation techniques for proteomic analysis, such as electric stimulation, fail to capture a comprehensive venom inventory owing to the external and internal distribution of cnidae.…”