Talk:Snake venom

Links

Currently one huge paragraph with no formatting or links. Looks like it was ripped from an article. --Jman 22:00, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yep, sure was: http://www.biologydaily.com/biology/Snake_poison. That's probably not okay. *sigh* This page should be paraphrased and combined with Snakebite. Maybe when I have some time... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.94.49.253 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 28 June 2005 (UTC)

This should really be renamed to "snake venom" and any links fixed up. There has been a LOT of good research (notably by Fry and Wüster) on snake venoms lately. In particular, they've demonstrated that it appears to have evolved once, while previously it was assumed to have evolved multiple times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.35.100.1 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Outdated

This discussion of the chemistry of snake venom is quite outdated. The book from which this article was copied was published in 1913, I think. Presently, MUCH is known about the chemistry of the peptides in various types of venom. For example, some types of venom that affect Potassium ion channels have 'helix-turn-helix' structure. The severity of the effect on these channels can be determined by the identity of some key amino acid residues. Perhaps a thorough discussion of this would be helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.124.63.152 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

There has been significant leaps in venom research and the taxonomy mentioned in the article that make it pretty much useless, but I'm not sure it should be merged with anything else, it just needs to be rewritten from the ground up covering the types of venom, types of tooth structure/delivery system, and phsyiological/chemical effects. -Dawson 04:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

At first I started to edit this article, correcting scientific names and links, like so many others before me. Then I realized that I could go on and on correct all of the factual errors (i.e. Boulenger considered Causus to be very dangerous) and generally bringing the information up-to-date, but that idea made me feel like I would be vandalizing an historical document. It's probably less work to delete the whole thing and start over with more up-to-date information than to waste time correcting it. --Jwinius 20:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. Just someone has to volunteer to do the work. ;) -Dawson 20:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I have an old book on the subject from the early 70's, but it's out of date now and nearly useless. This subject has become so complicated these days, that you have to be a biochemist -- or preferably a toxicologist -- just to understand the literature. Even professional herpetologists struggle with this. For example, IIRC, a relatively recent discovery was that it's not just the venoms that do the damage, but that they produce decomposition products (metabolites?) that do damage as well; a really cool evolutionary development, by it makes the whole subject that much more complicated. --Jwinius 10:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This article looks O'K to me. I did not find anything that is wrong. But I am not an expert here. Biophys 19:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I can recall watching a documentary when I was younger (probably early 1990's) where an australian herpetologist was demonstrating that one sort of australian snake (forget which. one of the major ones, probably the taipan) was quite succeptible to its own venom. thus I'd say the question of whether some snakes is vulnerable to its own venom HAS been answered definitively. However I've not yet found a citation or more specific reference, I'll keep looking. Also, this article is heavily lent towards european, african, indian and american snakes, simply I suspect because that's where most of the knowledge was back in 1913. However, considering the sort of percentage of the world's most venomous snakes that are in australia or southern asia... The article could probably do with being updated a bit with information on this part of the world imo. Quadbox 05:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Acid?

is there any info on acids and snake venoms?? mainly is it an acid? or a poison? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stansz (talk • contribs) 23:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Venoms are very, very complex, they contain a wide array of acidic and basic components that can vary greatly between species, but the traditional idea of something being acidic is not necessarily the primary means of action, though, many venoms, especially those of viperids, do serve to almost "pre-digest" potential food items by breaking down fatty acids and proteins. There are a several scientific papers out there that discuss it in detail, but I'd need a biologist translator to understand even half of it. :) -Dawson 07:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Snake venom genetics

I would like to read more about the genetic aspect of snake venoms, how many genes are involved, are the venoms purely proteins? When/how are they regulated? How are auto-poisonous issues overcome. THANKS. massa 04:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Answer: Snake venoms are not poisonous; they can be ingested (as the snake does) without harm. Although snakes generally have a high tolerance for their own venoms, they can be hurt and even killed by sufficient doses of it. Tequila with a shot of rattlesnake venom is a well-known "tough guy" drink in Mexico and the southwestern U.S. As long as you have no open sores in your mouth, throat, or stomach, it just tastes nasty. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.35.100.1 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

New data

New data just in on this, See Nature 2005 Fry, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7076/pdf/nature04328.pdf

all snake poison genetics has to be revised in the light of this paper. Poison did not arise twice in two different branches of snakes, it arose in the common ancestor of snakes and lizards, though boas lost poison. Thus lizards, even pet ones, are also poisonous (but their poison delivery is not as good).

Snake poison is NOT modified saliva, it uses genes recruited from all over the body (as of course each cell has all the DNA to make a whole snake, though usually not all genes are switched on in all cells). The snake/lizard common ancestor already had 9 very potent toxins. It seems that all venoms ARE pure proteins, which aren't regulated at all, they just get in your blood stream and get going. Fry was bitten at least three times by three snakes and can attest that the results (e.g. excruiating pain) as far too quick to be in any way related to bacterial infection. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.5.194.4 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 16 October 2006) (UTC)

Purpose

Discussion is needed of why there is huge 'overkill' in the amount of venom injected into prey: to immobilise the prey rapidly before it harms the snake or flees too far away to be tracked (if released); or to soften up the innards of the prey even as the snake's digestive juices digest it from its outside. Digestion of an animal swallowed whole by a cold-blooded creature is a race against time before it putrifies in the snake's stomach and must be regurgitated (hence also the great strength of snake digestive juices). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.210.34.213 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)