Cupiennius salei
| Cupiennius salei | |
|---|---|
| |
| Second instar of C. salei (scale bar= 500 μm) | |
| Scientific classification | |
| Kingdom: | |
| Phylum: | |
| Class: | |
| Order: | |
| Suborder: | |
| Family: | |
| Genus: | |
| Species: | C. salei
|
| Binomial name | |
| Cupiennius salei | |
Cupiennius salei, commonly called American wandering spider or tropical wandering spider or hunting spider, is a large venomous spider belonging to a group of wandering spiders found in the tropical rainforest of South and Central America. The species was accidentally introduced into Germany in the early 20th century from banana plantations in Central America. In the mid-1950s it was realised that the spider was a good model for biological research because of its large size, inactive behaviour, and ease of breeding in laboratories. From an initial 1963 publication on its biological characteristics, it has become the most studied species of spider.[1] Furthermore, the spider is now known to produce a complex neurotoxic venom, of which a peptide called CsTx-1 is highly potent for paralysing its prey.[2] Its toxin has also become one of the most studied among those of venomous spiders. As the spider does not produce a web for trapping prey, being venomous is its primary strategy for prey capture. It is known to prey on a wide range of insects and small vertebrates.
Description
Cupiennius salei is a large arboreal spider with distinct sexual dimorphism. The females are relatively larger than the males, measuring up to 3.5 cm in body length, with a 10 cm legspan. The dorsal side of the body is chocolate-brown with small, lighter spots on the abdomen and many darker longitudinal stripes, particularly on the carapace. The ventral side is red-orange with thin black vertical under the abdomen. Males measure up to 2.5 cm long and have very long and thin legs. The males are much lighter in colour than the females. They are distinct, with conspicuous palpal bulbs.[3]
Cupiennius salei a nocturnal, "sit-and-wait" ambush predator. They are arboreal in the wild, living in large trees covered with epiphytes, branches and moss that constitute a rainforest roof. Although they tend to be inactive, they are much faster than many other arachnids when provoked. Their vision is reduced and they rely on their tactile sensation to detect movements or vibrations in their environment.[3]
Venom
Cupiennius salei produces a neurotoxic venom which is composed of a complex mixture of compounds. The venom contains at least 286 compound and 49 novel proteins.[4] In addition, there are many low molecular compounds, nine neurotoxic acting peptides (CSTX), at least eight neurotoxic and cytolytic acting peptides (collectively called cupiennins), highly active hyaluronidases.[1] The most powerful neurotoxin is a peptide called CsTx-1.[2] In 2002 a new family of peptides called cupiennins (cupiennin 1a, cupiennin 1b, cupiennin 1c, cupiennin 1d) was discovered from the venom. These proteins are all composed of 35 amino acid residues, and have high antimicrobial activities.[5] It was subsequently discovered that the cupiennins are broad-spectrum bioactive compounds having bactericidal, insecticidal and haemolytic activities.[6]
Venom gland
Cupiennius salei produces its venom in a pair of cylindrical pouch-like glands located an the anterior end of the head (prosoma). In adult females, each gland measures 1.8 mm in diameter and 6.5 mm in length. The glands are connected to a small duct through which the venom is discharged via its fang-like chelicera. Just before entering the chelicera, the duct enlarges to a muscle-invested ampulla and then constricts again. This specific arrangement is believed to be the regulatory system on the amount of venom that is released.[1][7]
Venom optimization
Cupiennius salei is a non-web producing spider and therefore depends entirely on its venom for predation. It is known to prey on a variety of insects including, butterflies, moths, earwigs, cockroaches, flys, grasshoppers and small vertebrates such as frogs and lizards.[8] Its venom glands store only about 10 μl crude venom.[9] Refilling of the glands takes 2-3 days and the lethal efficacy of the venom is very low for several days after envenomation, requiring 8 to 18 days to regain full effect.[10] It has been determined that the amount of venom released differs between types of prey. For larger and stronger insects such as beetles, the spider uses the entire amount of its venom; for smaller prey, it uses only small amounts, thus economising use of the biologically costly venom.[9][11]
References
- ^ a b c Kuhn-Nentwig L, Schaller J, Nentwig W (2004). "Biochemistry, toxicology and ecology of the venom of the spider Cupiennius salei (Ctenidae)". Toxicon. 43 (5): 543–553. doi:10.1016/j.toxicon.2004.02.009. PMID 15066412.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ a b Kuhn-Nentwig L, Fedorova IM, Lüscher BP, Kopp LS, Trachsel C, Schaller J, Vu XL, Seebeck T, Streitberger K, Nentwig W, Sigel E, Magazanik LG (2012). "A venom-derived neurotoxin, CsTx-1, from the spider Cupiennius salei exhibits cytolytic activities". J Biol Chem. 287 (30): 25640-25649. doi:10.1074/jbc.M112.339051. PMC 3408166. PMID 22613721.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) - ^ a b Francesco Tomasinelli. "Cupiennius salei" (PDF). The British Tarantula Society Journal. Retrieved 14 September 2013.
- ^ Trachsel C, Siegemund D, Kämpfer U, Kopp LS, Bühr C, Grossmann J, Lüthi C, Cunningham M, Nentwig W, Kuhn-Nentwig L, Schürch S, Schaller J (2012). "Multicomponent venom of the spider Cupiennius salei: a bioanalytical investigation applying different strategies". FEBS J. 279 (15): 2683–2694. doi:10.1111/j.1742-4658.2012.08650.x. PMID 22672445.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Kuhn-Nentwig L, Muller J, Schaller J, Walz A, Dathe M, Nentwig W (2002). "Cupiennin 1, a new family of highly basic antimicrobial peptides in the venom of the spider Cupiennius salei (Ctenidae)". J Biol Chem. 277 (13): 11208–11216. PMID 11792701.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Kuhn-Nentwig L, Sheynis T, Kolusheva S, Nentwig W, Jelinek R (2013). "N-terminal aromatic residues closely impact the cytolytic activity of cupiennin 1a, a major spider venom peptide". Toxicon. pii: S0041-0101(13)00089-5. doi:10.1016/j.toxicon.2013.03.003. PMID 23523532.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Boevé JL, Kuhn-Nentwig L, Keller S, Nentwig W (1995). "Quantity and quality of venom released by a spider (Cupiennius salei, Ctenidae)". Toxicon. 33 (10): 1347–1357. doi:10.1016/0041-0101(95)00066-U. PMID 8599185.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Nentwig W (1986). "Non-webbuilding spiders: prey specialists or generalists?". Oecologia. 69 (4): 571–576. doi:10.1007/BF00410365.
- ^ a b Wigger E, Kuhn-Nentwig L, Nentwig W (2002). "The venom optimisation hypothesis: a spider injects large venom quantities only into difficult prey types". Toxicon. 40 (6): 749-752. doi:10.1016/S0041-0101(01)00277-X. PMID 12175611.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Boevé JL, Kuhn-Nentwig L, Keller S, Nentwig W (1995). "Quantity and quality of venom released by a spider (Cupiennius salei, Ctenidae)". Toxicon. 33 (10): 1347–1357. PMID 8599185.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Morgenstern D, King GF (2013). "The venom optimization hypothesis revisited". Toxicon. 63: 120-128. doi:10.1016/j.toxicon.2012.11.022. PMID 23266311.