4.7 Article

Venomous Secretions from Marine Snails of the Terebridae Family Target Acetylcholine Receptors

Journal

TOXINS
Volume 5, Issue 5, Pages 1043-1050

Publisher

MDPI AG
DOI: 10.3390/toxins5051043

Keywords

Terebridae venom; gland extracts; acetylcholine receptors; potassium channels; sodium channels

Funding

  1. CONCO
  2. European Commission [Ndegrees 037592, FP6-2005-LIFESCIHEALTH-6]
  3. research funding programme LOEWE-Landes-Offensive zur Entwicklung Wissenschaftlich-okonomischer Exzellenz
  4. Hesse's Ministry of Higher Education, Research, and the Arts
  5. DFG [NI 592/5-2]
  6. EU-FP7-MAREX
  7. Inter-University Attraction Poles Program, Belgian State, Belgian Science Policy [OT/12/081]
  8. [G.0433.12]
  9. [G.A071.10N]
  10. [G.0257.08]
  11. [IUAP 7/10]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Venoms from cone snails (Conidae) have been extensively studied during the last decades, but those from other members of the suborder Toxoglossa, such as of Terebridae and Turridae superfamilies attracted less interest so far. Here, we report the effects of venom and gland extracts from three species of the superfamily Terebridae. By 2-electrode voltage-clamp technique the gland extracts were tested on Xenopus oocytes expressing nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) of rat neuronal (alpha(3)beta(2), alpha(3)beta(4), alpha(4)beta(2), alpha(4)beta(4), alpha 7) and muscle subtypes (alpha(1)beta(1)gamma delta), and expressing potassium (Kv1.2 and Kv1.3) and sodium channels (Nav1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.6). The extracts were shown to exhibit remarkably high inhibitory activities on almost all nAChRs tested, in particular on the a7 subtype suggesting the presence of peptides of the A-superfamily from the venom of Conus species. In contrast, no effects on the potassium and sodium channels tested were observed. The venoms of terebrid snails may offer an additional source of novel biologically active peptides.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available