Venoms kill through the action of at least four major classes of toxin, namely necrotoxins and cytotoxins, which kill cells; neurotoxins, which affect nervous systems; and myotoxins, which damage muscles. Biologically, venom is distinguished from other poisons in that unlike ingested poisons, venom is delivered in a bite, sting, or similar action. Venomous animals cause tens of thousands of human deaths per year. However, the toxins in many venoms have potential to treat a wide range of diseases.
The use of venom across a wide variety of taxa is an example of convergent evolution. It is difficult to conclude exactly how this trait came to be so intensely widespread and diversified. The multigene families that encode the toxins of venomous animals are actively selected, creating more diverse toxins with specific functions. Venoms adapt to their environment and victims and accordingly evolve to become maximally efficient on a predator's particular prey (particularly the precise ion channels within the prey). Consequently, venoms become specialized to an animal's standard diet.
Venom is widely distributed taxonomically, being found in both invertebrates and vertebrates; in aquatic and terrestrial animals; and among both predators and prey. The major groups of venomous animals are described below.
Many caterpillars have defensive venom glands associated with specialized bristles on the body, known as urticating hairs, which can be lethal to humans (e.g., that of the Lonomia moth), although the venom's strength varies depending on the species.
Bees synthesize and employ an acidic venom (apitoxin) to cause pain in those that they sting to defend their hives and food stores, whereas wasps use a chemically different alkaline venom designed to paralyze prey, so it can be stored alive in the food chambers of their young. The use of venom is much more widespread than just these examples. Other insects, such as true bugs and many ants, also produce venom. At least one ant species (Polyrhachis dives) has been shown to use venom topically for the sterilisation of pathogens.
Some 450 species of snake are venomous.Snake venom is produced by glands below the eye (the mandibular gland) and delivered to the victim through tubular or channeled fangs. Snake venoms contain a variety of peptide toxins, including proteases, which hydrolyze protein peptide bonds, nucleases, which hydrolyze the phosphodiester bonds of DNA, and neurotoxins, which disable signalling in the nervous system. Snake venom causes symptoms including pain, swelling, tissue necrosis, low blood pressure, convulsions, hemorrhage (varying by species of snake), respiratory paralysis, kidney failure, coma and death. Snake venom may have originated with duplication of genes that had been expressed in the salivary glands of ancestors.
Extensive research on platypuses shows that their toxin was initially formed from gene duplication, but data provides evidence that the further evolution of platypus venom does not rely as much on gene duplication as once was thought. Modified sweat glands are what evolved into platypus venom glands. Although it is proven that reptile and platypus venom have independently evolved, it is thought that there are certain protein structures that are favored to evolve into toxic molecules. This provides more evidence as to why venom has become a homoplastic trait and why very different animals have convergently evolved.
Venom and humans
Venomous animals resulted in 57,000 human deaths in 2013, down from 76,000 deaths in 1990.
Venom is utilized as a trophic weapon by multiple predator species. The coevolution between predators and prey is a driving force of venom resistance, which has evolved multiple times throughout the animal kingdom. Repeated interactions between two species can generate coevolution. The coevolution between venomous predators and venom resistant prey is best described as a chemical arms race. Predator and prey pairs are expected to associate with one another for stable periods of time. Venom is used as a chemical weapon by predator species. As the predator capitalizes on susceptible individuals, the surviving individuals are limited to those who are able to evade predation. Resistance phenotypes typically increase over time as the predator becomes increasingly unable to subdue prey that have developed this new resistance phenotype.
The cost of developing a venom resistance is high, for predator and prey. Developing an entire physiological resistance is extremely costly, however it maximizes chances of survival for prey species and allows predator species to expand into underutilized trophic niches. If it is possible for an animal to evade predation through something less costly like a behavioral modification, the development of a physiological modification becomes unnecessary.
Venom resistant animals
Asian pen-tailed treeshrew
Pen-tailed treeshrews are the only known mammals that consume alcohol every night, other than humans. According to a study of treeshrews in Malaysia, they spend several hours per night consuming the equivalent of 10 to 12 glasses of wine with an alcohol content up to 3.8% drinking naturally fermentednectar of the bertam palm. This nectar contains one of the highest alcohol concentrations of all natural foods. Pen-tailed treeshrews frequently consume large amounts of this nectar while showing no signs of intoxication. Measurements of a biomarker of ethanol breakdown suggest that they may be metabolizing it by a pathway that is not used as heavily by humans. Their ability to ingest high amounts of alcohol is hypothesized to have been an evolutionary adaptation in the phylogenic tree. However, how pen-tailed treeshrews benefit from this alcohol ingestion or what consequences of consistent high blood alcohol content might factor into their physiology is unclear.
California ground squirrel and Northern Pacific rattlesnake
One of the most heavily researched cases of venom resistance is the California Ground Squirrel, which is resistant to the venom of the Northern Pacific Rattlesnake. The predator-prey pair have coexisted for generations. The repeated interactions fostered the development of an anti-snake venom defense in the California ground squirrels. Researchers found evidence supporting the theory that venom resistance is driven by coevolution among these populations of California ground squirrels. They use toxin scavenging to negate the effects of the haemolytic toxins of their rattlesnake predators, demonstrating a physiological resistance to rattlesnake venom. Resistance in these ground squirrels is population dependent. In areas where rattlesnake populations are very dense, there is a significant increase in resistance in the squirrels compared to populations where rattlesnakes are rare. Rattlesnakes demonstrated local adaptions in the effectiveness of their venom in order to overcome the venom resistant squirrels.
Eels and sea snakes
There is an ongoing evolutionary contest between toxicity and resistance. The resistance of eels to sea snake venom is a good example of coevolution between predator-prey pairs. Sea snake venom is composed of complex mixtures of neurotoxins, myotoxins, nephrotoxins, and other nontoxic substances. The composition of the sea snake venom is species specific. The biggest piece of evidence for this as a case of coevolution is that eels that are favored by sea snakes as prey have unusually high tolerances to the venom of the sea snake. Studies have analyzed the resistance of four species of eels to two different sea snakes: one is a dietary generalist and the other is an eel specialist. The eels were more resistant to the venom of the eel specialist sea snake. Non-prey fishes exhibited very low levels of resistance to the sea snake venom, further supporting coevolution. The genetic mechanisms allowing clownfish to interact with sea anemones is still somewhat unclear. Only 10 known species of anemones are hosts to clownfish and only certain pairs of anemones and clownfish are compatible with one another.
Ocellaris clownfish (Amphiprion ocellaris) with host anemone
All sea anemones produce venoms delivered through discharging nematocysts and mucous secretions. The toxins are composed of peptides and proteins. They are used for prey acquisition and to deter predators by causing pain, loss of muscular coordination and tissue damage. Clownfish have a protective mucous that acts as a chemical camouflage or macromolecular mimicry preventing "not self" recognition by the sea anemone and nematocyst discharge. The sea anemone perceives the fish as its "self" most likely by the same mechanism which prevents the discharge of nematocysts when its tentacles come into contact with each other. Clownfish exhibit either strict host specificity or are environmental niche generalists and can associate with a variety of sea anemone species. In some species, the mucus of clownfish was found to change during acclimation to resemble that of the specific species of sea anemone.
For the Clownfish, a relationship with the sea anemone is an obligatory one. In some cases, it is an obligatory relationship for the anemone as well. In all cases, the interaction between the two is mutually beneficial. Clownfish and sea anemones are one of the most compelling cases of symbiosis. The relationship provides mutual protection from predators and the exchange of nutrients. Divergent natural selection drives adaptive diversification through ecological speciation. The ability of clownfish to use sea anemones as hosts has evolved 4 independent times. The obligate relationship between the clownfish and the sea anemone has allowed the radiation of clownfishes.
Inhabiting the Americas from southeastern Canada to southern Ecuador, Kingsnakes, of genus Lampropeltis, are constrictors that prey on many venomous snakes. In order to prey upon the venomous snakes, Kingsnakes have actually evolved a resistance rather than incrementally increasing their resistance to a point of immunity, like many species have. Kingsnakes resistance levels are currently known to be fixed for the duration of its life and have not been found to change with age or exposure. It is thought, that Kingsnakes have developed this evolutionary adaptation through a process called a co-evolutionary arms race with natural selection at the forefront. Kingsnake predators that were slightly better able to tolerate the effects of the venom were more likely to survive with resulting genocide of the Kingsnakes that were inherently not sufficiently resistant. While simultaneously, the venomous snakes with more potent venom were more likely to survive the predatory nature of the Kingsnakes, thus escalating the arms race.
However, the nature of the arms race has put a stipulation onto the Kingsnakes. Kingsnakes have evolved resistance only to the venom of snakes that are in their immediate environment, like copperheads, cottonmouths, and North American rattlesnakes, but not to the venom of, for example, king cobras or black mambas. Even through geographical boundaries, Kingsnake venom resistance has varied between species. They found that blood from Eastern Kingsnakes (Lampropeltis getula) had the widest spectrum of protection against the venoms tested and was the most effective at neutralizing many rattlesnake venoms, but the least effective against copperhead venom. Blood from kingsnakes from Florida & the Gulf Coast was the most effective at neutralizing the venom of copperheads & cottonmouths. Mole Kingsnake (Lampropeltis calligaster) blood is about 75% as effective at neutralizing Mojave Rattlesnake (Crotalus scutulatus) venom as the blood of Eastern Kingsnakes. Gray-banded Kingsnakes (L. alterna) have moderate neutralization potential against Western Diamondback (C. atrox) venom, but none against Eastern Diamondback (C. adamanteus) venom.
^Samejima Y.; Aoki, Y; Mebs, D. (1991). "Amino acid sequence of a myotoxin from venom of the eastern diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus)". Toxicon. 29 (4): 461-468. doi:10.1016/0041-0101(91)90020-r. PMID1862521.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^Baptista-Saidemberg, Nicoli; et al. (2011). "Profiling the peptidome of the venom from the social wasp Agelaia pallipes pallipes". Journal of Proteomics. 74 (10): 2123-2137. doi:10.1016/j.jprot.2011.06.004. PMID21693203.
^Pinto, Antônio F. M.; Berger, Markus; Reck, José; Terra, Renata M. S.; Guimarães, Jorge A. (15 December 2010). "Lonomia obliqua venom: In vivo effects and molecular aspects associated with the hemorrhagic syndrome". Toxicon. 56 (7): 1103-1112. doi:10.1016/j.toxicon.2010.01.013. PMID20114060.
^Graystock, Peter; Hughes, William O. H. (2011). "Disease resistance in a weaver ant, Polyrhachis dives, and the role of antibiotic-producing glands". Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 65 (12): 2319-2327. doi:10.1007/s00265-011-1242-y. S2CID23234351.
^Olivera, B. M.; Teichert, R. W. (2007). "Diversity of the neurotoxic Conus peptides: a model for concerted pharmacological discovery". Molecular Interventions. 7 (5): 251-260. doi:10.1124/mi.7.5.7. PMID17932414.
^Nowak, R. T.; Brodie, E. D. (1978). "Rib Penetration and Associated Antipredator Adaptations in the Salamander Pleurodeles waltl (Salamandridae)". Copeia. 1978 (3): 424-429. doi:10.2307/1443606. JSTOR1443606.
^Fry, B. G.; Wuster, W.; Ramjan, S. F. R.; Jackson, T.; Martelli, P.; Kini, R. M. 2003c. Analysis of Colubroidea snake venoms by liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry: Evolutionary and toxinological implications. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 17:2047-2062.
^Fry, B. G.; Vidal, N.; Norman, J. A.; Vonk, F. J.; Scheib, H.; Ramjan, S. F.; Kuruppu, S.; Fung, K.; Hedges, S. B.; Richardson, M. K.; Hodgson, W. C.; Ignjatovic, V.; Summerhayes, R.; Kochva, E. (February 2006). "Early evolution of the venom system in lizards and snakes". Nature. 439 (7076): 584-588. Bibcode:2006Natur.439..584F. doi:10.1038/nature04328. PMID16292255. S2CID4386245.
^Pal, S. K.; Gomes, A.; Dasgupta, S. C.; Gomes, A. (2002). "Snake venom as therapeutic agents: from toxin to drug development". Indian Journal of Experimental Biology. 40 (12): 1353-1358. PMID12974396.
^Fox, Eduardo Gonçalves Paterson (2021), Gopalakrishnakone, P.; Calvete, Juan J. (eds.), "Venom Toxins of Fire Ants", Venom Genomics and Proteomics: Venom Genomics and Proteomics, Springer Netherlands, pp. 1-16, doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6649-5_38-1 (inactive 14 January 2021), ISBN9789400766495CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of January 2021 (link)
^McCabe, Thomas M.; Mackessy, Stephen P. (2015), Gopalakrishnakone, P.; Malhotra, Anita (eds.), "Evolution of Resistance to Toxins in Prey", Evolution of Venomous Animals and Their Toxins, Toxinology, Springer Netherlands, pp. 1-19, doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6727-0_6-1, ISBN978-94-007-6727-0
^Poran, Naomie S.; Coss, Richard G.; Benjamini, Eli (1 January 1987). "Resistance of California ground squirrels (Spermophilus Beecheyi) to the venom of the northern Pacific rattlesnake (Crotalus Viridis Oreganus): A study of adaptive variation". Toxicon. 25 (7): 767-777. doi:10.1016/0041-0101(87)90127-9. ISSN0041-0101. PMID3672545.
^Coss, Richard G.; Poran, Naomie S.; Gusé, Kevin L.; Smith, David G. (1 January 1993). "Development of Antisnake Defenses in California Ground Squirrels (Spermophilus Beecheyi): II. Microevolutionary Effects of Relaxed Selection From Rattlesnakes". Behaviour. 124 (1-2): 137-162. doi:10.1163/156853993X00542. ISSN0005-7959.
^Heatwole, Harold; Poran, Naomie S. (15 February 1995). "Resistances of Sympatric and Allopatric Eels to Sea Snake Venoms". Copeia. 1995 (1): 136. doi:10.2307/1446808. JSTOR1446808.
^Heatwole, Harold; Powell, Judy (May 1998). "Resistance of eels (Gymnothorax) to the venom of sea kraits (Laticauda colubrina): a test of coevolution". Toxicon. 36 (4): 619-625. doi:10.1016/S0041-0101(97)00081-0. PMID9643474.
^da Silva, Karen Burke; Nedosyko, Anita (2016), Goffredo, Stefano; Dubinsky, Zvy (eds.), "Sea Anemones and Anemonefish: A Match Made in Heaven", The Cnidaria, Past, Present and Future: The world of Medusa and her sisters, Springer International Publishing, pp. 425-438, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-31305-4_27, ISBN978-3-319-31305-4