Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jun 10;16(6):e0253050. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253050

From birth to adulthood: An analysis of the Brazilian lancehead (Bothrops moojeni) venom at different life stages

Daniela Miki Hatakeyama 1,2, Lídia Jorge Tasima 1,2, Nathália da Costa Galizio 1,2, Caroline Serino-Silva 1,2, Caroline Fabri Bittencourt Rodrigues 1,2, Daniel Rodrigues Stuginski 1, Sávio Stefanini Sant’Anna 1, Kathleen Fernandes Grego 1, Alexandre Keiji Tashima 3, Erika Sayuri Nishiduka 3, Karen de Morais-Zani 1,2, Anita Mitico Tanaka-Azevedo 1,2,*
Editor: Israel Silman4
PMCID: PMC8191990  PMID: 34111213

Abstract

The Brazilian lancehead (Bothrops moojeni) has a wide distribution in Brazil and represents a serious public health hazard. Previous works reported that the symptoms of snakebites caused by B. moojeni juveniles’ bites were mainly related to coagulation, while those caused by adults’ bites had a more prominent local damage. In this work, we analyzed the venoms of B. moojeni at different life stages to better understand the ontogeny shift in this species. Snakes were grouped by age and sex, and venom pools were formed accordingly. Compositional analyses by one-dimensional electrophoresis (1-DE), chromatography, and mass spectrometry revealed that ontogenetic changes might be mostly related to phospholipase A2 (PLA2) and metalloproteases. Regarding the venoms functional aspect, proteolytic, L-amino acid oxidase, PLA2, and coagulant in vitro activities were assayed, but only the first and the last ones showed age-related changes, with the venom of snakes up to 1 year-old displaying lower proteolytic and higher coagulant activities, while those from 2 years-old onward presented the opposite relation. The venoms of 3 years-old snakes were exceptions to the compositional and functional pattern of adults as both venoms presented profiles similar to neonates. Sex-related differences were observed in specific groups and were not age-related. In vivo experiments (median lethal dose and hemorrhagic activity) were statistically similar between neonates and adults, however we verified that the adult venom killed mice faster comparing to the neonates. All venoms were mostly recognized by the antibothropic serum and displayed similar profiles to 1-DE in western blotting. In conclusion, the Brazilian lancehead venom showed ontogenetic shift in its composition and activities. Furthermore, this change occurred in snakes from 1 to 2 years-old, and interestingly the venom pools from 3 years-old snakes had particular characteristics, which highlights the importance of comprehensive studies to better understand venom variability.

Introduction

Classified as a neglected tropical disease by the World Health Organization (in Category A), snakebites are an important public health hazard, especially in tropical and subtropical areas [1]. In 2019, 24,453 envenomings were reported in Brazil [2], with the genus Bothrops being responsible for 85.5% of the cases reported [2].

Snake venom is a complex mixture of proteins, peptides, and non-proteic components that has a primary foraging function but also acts as a defense mechanism [3, 4]; additionally, it may help the digestion of preys’ tissues [5, 6]. In the case of the Bothrops venom, the main effects reported are involved in coagulation disorders, hemorrhage and local tissue damage [7, 8], due to single toxins and/or the synergistic action of the venom’s compounds [9]. Most of bothropic venoms are mainly composed by metalloproteases (SVMP), serine proteases (SVSP), phospholipases A2 (PLA2), L-amino acid oxidases (LAAO), and C-type lectins (CTL) [1, 10, 11]. SVMPs are generally responsible for pro- and anti-coagulant disorders and hemorrhage; other effects include edema, pain, blistering, and nephrotoxicity [1, 12]. SVSPs affect the homeostasis acting on the different factors involved in the coagulaltion cascade [13, 14]. Many effects are associated to PLA2s, such as myotoxicity, neurotoxicity, edema, platelet aggregation disturbance, tissue damage, among others [15]. LAAOs are known to be quite labile when exposed to temperature, pH, and even to the proteases present in the venom [1618] and their main effects are related to cytotoxicity by inducing the release of H2O2, induction of hemorrhage and apoptosis, and inhibition and induction of platelet aggregation [19]. Lastly, CTLs disrupts blood homeostasis by inducing/inhibiting platelet aggregation or activating/consuming coagulation factors [20].

The Brazilian lancehead (Bothrops moojeni, Hoge 1966; Fig 1) inhabits mainly the riparian forest of the Brazilian Cerrado biome (States of Bahia, Distrito Federal, Goiás, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Minas Gerais, Paraná, Piauí, São Paulo, and Tocantins) and represents a public health problem [2123]. In general, during the early stages of life, B. moojeni present a whitish to yellowish tail tip (Fig 1A) and also a caudal luring behavior. Juvenile B. moojeni feeds mainly on small ectotherms (primarily on anurans), but during their development these snakes present an ontogenetic shift on their diets, including small mammals (especially rodents) as an important diet resource [2426]. The tail tip of the snakes also changes, becoming darker during adulthood (Fig 1B) [25, 26].

Fig 1. Juvenile and adult Bothrops moojeni.

Fig 1

Specimens of B. moojeni snake at juvenile (A) and adult (B) stages. Photos by Sávio Stefanini Sant’Anna.

Snake venom variability is well known and may be influenced by many factors, such as age, sex, geographic location, season, and captivity conditions; besides, individuals may also differ from each other even if submitted to the same conditions [2745]. Kouyoumdjian and Polizelli [46] observed that accidents with juvenile B. moojeni caused a higher incidence of coagulation disorders than accidents with adult snakes. On the other hand, the latter inflicted more severe local tissue damage in comparison to younger snakes. Later, Furtado and colleagues [28] reported outstanding differences between adult females and their respective offspring in nine species of Bothrops, including B. moojeni, although individual variation was not considered. The mother’s venom of five out of nine species were more lethal than their respective offspring, most newborn venoms presented an electrophoretic profile with bands of higher molecular weight than their respective mothers, caseinolytic activity of all mother’s venoms were higher than their newborns, and newborn venoms were more coagulant over plasma and showed higher factor X and prothrombin activation [28].

Besides B. moojeni, other species within the genus Bothrops also present ontogenetic shift in venom composition and function. For example, the venom of adult specimens of B. jararaca, one of the most studied lancehead pit viper, showed predominantly proteolytic activity and local tissue damage when compared to the venom of juveniles, which caused mainly coagulant disorders [4749]. Similarly, B. insularis, B. atrox, and B. asper are other examples of Bothrops species which venoms undergoes ontogenetic shift, although B. insularis has different feeding habits [41, 47, 50, 51]. It is noteworthy that not only specific activities of the venom change but also its lethality might vary according to the snake’s age even in a species with specialized diets such as B. alternatus, that feeds only on mammals throughout its life [24, 47]. Compositional differences between the venom of neonates and adults were observed in different species of viperids, such as Bothriechis schlegelii, B. lateralis, Crotalus durissus ssp, C. viridis viridis, Lachesis muta, and L. stenophrys, as well as in the elapid species, Naja kaouthia [5259]. Such widespread phenomenon highlights the importance of studying the ontogenetic shift in the venom of snakes, as this information can improve the treatment of snakebite patients and the antivenom production. Venom intraspecific variations have been described to result in different reactions in vitro and in vivo (experiments and clinical reports) between the venoms and their specific antivenoms [27, 32, 33, 46, 49, 60].

Whilst extensively studied, intraspecific variability still needs more elucidation, as it could have an impact in snakebite treatment [36, 61]. In this work, we analyzed the venom of captive-born Brazilian lancehead at different life stages in controlled environment.

Material and methods

Venoms and animals

Captive-born Brazilian lancehead were milked in the Laboratory of Herpetology at Instituto Butantan, according to the laboratory’s protocol [62], centrifuged at 2,500 x g for 15 min to remove debris, lyophilized, and stored at −20°C until the analyses. Protein concentration of the venoms was determined according to the Bradford method, using Bio-Rad Protein Assay reagent (5000006) and bovine serum albumin (Sigma, A2153) as standard, following the manufacturer’s recommendations. Table 1 shows the groups by ages, number of specimens, average size (snout-vent length–SVL in cm), protein concentration, and locality of the snakes or their parents; in S1 Table, individual information is listed.

Table 1. Data of age, size, and localization where the snakes or their parents came from.

N SVL (cm ± SD) mg protein/mg venom
Group Age Male Female Male Female Male Female Locality
BmN Neonate 18 16 26.9 ± 1.1 27.9 ± 1.0 0.65 ± 0.01 0.67 ± 0.01 Araraquara–SP
(24 days)
Bm<1 > 1 year-old 18 15 35.2 ± 3.5 35.4 ± 2.8 0.65 ± 0.03 0.78 ± 0.003 Patos de Minas–MG
(5 months) Brotas–SP
Bm1 1 year-old 6 3 50.9 ± 3.3 51.2 ± 1.6 0.73 ± 0.02 0.73 ± 0.01 Chapada dos Guimarães–MT
Gaúcha do Norte–MT
Bm2 2 years-old 8 8 64.3 ± 3.6 65.6 ± 8.4 0.80 ± 0.01 0.74 ± 0.01 Gaúcha do Norte–MT
Palmas–TO
Bm3 3 years-old 1 5 78.5 ± 0.0 96.5 ± 3.3 0.76 ± 0.02 0.82 ± 0.02 Chapada dos Guimarães–MT
Bm>4 > 4 years-old 5 5 98.2 ± 3.8 112.3 ± 8.0 0.98 ± 0.03 1.31 ± 0.03 Araraquara–SP
Chapada dos Guimarães–MT
Gaúcha do Norte–MT
Palmas–TO

Group: the identification of species and age used throughout this work. Age: the age of the snakes when their venoms were milked. N: number of individuals (male and female). SVL (cm ± SD): the average size (snout-vent-length in cm), and standard deviation in each group. mg protein/mg venom: protein concentration in each pool used. Locality: the place where the individuals or their parents came from. Detailed information of each individual is listed in S1 Table.

All experiments involving snakes and mice were approved by the Ethical Committee for the Use of Animals of Instituto Butantan (CEUAIB), São Paulo, Brazil, protocol identification numbers 9238080117, 2540200919, and 7967310720, and were certified in agreement with the Ethical Principles in Animal Research adopted by the Brazilian Council of Animal Experimentation Control (CONCEA).

Compositional analysis

One-dimensional electrophoresis (1-DE)

Twenty micrograms of venom samples were homogenized with a sample buffer in the presence of β-mercaptoethanol (Calbiochem, 444203). 1-DE was carried out in 15% gels, according to the method described by Laemmli [63], and then gels were stained with Coomassie Blue G-250 (Sigma. B0770) according to manufacturer’s recommendations.

Reverse-phase high performance liquid chromatography (RP-HPLC)

Five hundred micrograms of lyophilized individual and pooled venoms were dissolved in 200 μL of 0.1% trifluoroacetic acid (TFA (Sigma, 302031); solution A), centrifuged at 13,000 x g for 15 min, and separated by RP-HPLC using a Teknokroma Europa Protein 300 C18 column (0.46 cm × 25 cm, 5 mm particle size, 300 Å pore size) and an Äkta Purifier system (GE Healthcare). Elution was carried out at 1 mL/min by applying a gradient toward solution B (95% acetonitrile (Sigma, 34851) containing 0.1% TFA), according to Gay et al. [64] with some modifications: 5% B for 5 min, 5–25% B for 10 min, 25–45% B for 60 min, 45–70% B for 10 min, 70–100% B for 10 min, and 100% B for 10 min.

Mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS)

Venom protein samples of 100 μg were dissolved in 50 μL of 50 mM ammonium bicarbonate (Sigma, 9830), followed by addition of 25 μL of 0.2% RapiGest (Waters), and incubation at 80°C for 15 min. Samples were reduced with 5 mM dithiothreitol (Sigma, D9779) at 60°C for 30 min and then alkylated in the dark with 10 mM iodoacetamide (Sigma, I1149) at room temperature for 30 min. Proteins were digested using trypsin (Promega, V5111) at a 1:100 (wt:wt) enzyme:protein ratio at 37°C overnight. Digestion was stopped by addition of 10 μL of 5% TFA (Sigma, T6508) and incubation at 37°C for 90 min. Samples were filtered through 0.22 μm Millex-GV filters (EMD Millipore) into glass vials. The final protein concentration was approximately 2 μg/μL. Mass spectrometry experiments of venom digests were performed on a Synapt G2 HDMS (Waters) mass spectrometer coupled to a nanoAcquity UPLC system (Waters). Approximately 10 μg of each peptide mixture was loaded online for 5 min at a flow rate of 8 μL/min of phase A (0.1% formic acid (Sigma, F0507)) using a Symmetry C18 trapping column (5 μm particles, 180 μm x 20 mm length; Waters). The mixture of trapped peptides was subsequently separated by elution with a gradient of 7–35% of phase B (0.1% formic acid in acetonitrile (Sigma, 34851)) through a BEH 130 C18 column (1.7 μm particles, 75 x 150 mm; Waters) in 90 min at 325 nL/min. Data were acquired in the data-independent mode HDMSE with ion mobility separation in the m/z range of 50–2000 and resolution mode. Collision energies were alternated between 4 eV and a ramp of 19–48 eV for precursor ions and fragment ions, respectively, using scan times of 1.0 s. The ESI source was operated in positive mode with a capillary voltage of 3.1 kV, block temperature of 100°C, and cone voltage of 40 V. For lock mass correction, a [Glu1]-Fibrinopeptide B solution (500 fmol/mL in 50% acetonitrile, 0.1% formic acid; Peptide 2.0) was infused through the reference sprayer at 500 nL/min and sampled every 60 s. Venom samples were analyzed in technical duplicates. Mass spectrometry raw data were processed in ProteinLynx Global Server 3.0.3 (Waters) platform using a low energy threshold of 750 counts and an elevated energy threshold of 50 counts. Database searches were performed against Bothrops sequences from UniprotKB/Swissprot (www.uniprot.org; unreviewed; 3,555 sequences; downloaded on August 29th, 2019). The following search parameters were used: automatic tolerances for precursor and fragment ions, carbamidomethylation of cysteine residues as fixed modification, oxidation of methionine and N-terminal acetylation as variable modifications, and trypsin digestion with up to two missed cleavage sites allowed. Protein identifications were considered with a minimum of one fragment ion per peptide, five fragment ions per protein, two peptides per protein, and a false discovery identification rate set to 1%, estimated by simultaneous search against a reversed database [65].

Label-free quantification was performed in Progenesis QI for proteomics (NonLinear Dynamics, Newcastle, UK) as previously reported [66]. Briefly, the raw files were loaded in the software and a reference run for the replicates was automatically chosen. Precursor ion retention times were processed for alignment, peak picking and normalized to the reference run with default parameters. Relative quantification was carried out by the comparison of peptide ion abundances, which were calculated as the sum of the areas under the isotope boundaries.

Functional analysis

Collagenolytic activity

Collagenolytic activity over azocoll was determined according to Váchová and Moravcová [67] and modified by Antunes et al. [49]. Venoms (6.25 μg) were incubated with 50 μL of a 5 mg/mL azocoll (Merck, 194933-5GM) solution, both diluted in Tyrode buffer (137 mM NaCl (Merck, 1064041000), 2.7 mM KCl (ECIBRA, ACS1233), 3 mM NaH2PO4 (Sigma, S-9638), 10 mM HEPES (Sigma, H3375), 5.6 mM dextrose (Sigma, D9434-500G), 1 mM MgCl2 (Sigma, M8266), 2 mM CaCl2 (Sigma, C106), pH 7.4) for 1 h in constant shake, at 37°C. The samples were centrifuged for 3 min at 5,000 x g and the absorbance of the supernatants (200 μL) was measured at 540 nm in a SpectraMax i3 microplate reader (Molecular Devices). One unit of activity was determined as the amount of venom that induces an increase of 0.003 units of absorbance. Specific activity was expressed as U/min/mg of venom.

Caseinolytic activity

Caseinolytic activity was determined as described by Menezes et al. [42]. Briefly, 10 μL of venom solution (1 mg/mL) and 500 μL of a solution of 2% N,N-dimethylated casein (Sigma, C9801), both solubilized in same buffer, were added to 490 μL of buffer (100 mM Tris (Sigma, T-8524), 10 mM CaCl2, pH 8.8). The mixture was incubated for 30 min at 37°C. The reaction was stopped by adding 1 mL of 5% trichloroacetic acid (TCA; Sigma, T6399). The sample was then incubated for 10 min in ice bath, centrifuged at 14,000 x g at 4°C for 15 min, and absorbance of the supernatants was performed in the plate reader SpectraMax i3 (Molecular Devices) using a wavelength of 280 nm. Specific activity was expressed as U/min/mg.

Phospholipase A2 activity

Phospholipase A2 activity was assayed based on the method described by Holzer and Mackessy [68] using the synthetic substrate 4-nitro-3-octanoyloxy-benzoic acid (NOBA; Enzo, BML-ST506-0250). Briefly, 20 μL of venom (1 mg/mL in 154 mM NaCl) were added to 200 μL of buffer (10 mM Tris, 10 mM CaCl2, and 100 mM NaCl, pH 8.0) and 20 μL of H2O in a 96-well microplate. Then, 20 μL of substrate (NOBA) (4.16 mM in acetonitrile) were added, to a final concentration of 0.32 nM. The mixture was homogenized and incubated for up to 60 min at 37°C, and the absorbance at 425 nm was measured in the plate reader SpectraMax i3 (Molecular Devices). A standard curve of absorbance as a function of chromophore (3-hydroxy-4-nitrobenzoic acid) concentration showed that a change in absorbance of 0.1 U was equivalent to 25.8 nmol of chromophore release [68]. The PLA2 specific activity was expressed as U/min/mg of venom.

L-amino acid activity

The microplate assay for LAAO activity was conducted as described by Kishimoto and Takahashi [69] with slight modifications. Ten microliters of venom (1 mg/mL in 154 mM NaCl) were added to the reaction mixture (50 mM of Tris, pH 8.0, 250 mM L-methionine (Sigma, M9265), 0.8 U/mL horseradish peroxidase (Sigma, P8125-5KU), and 2 mM of orthophenylenediamine (Merck, 1072430050). The reaction was incubated for 1 h at 37°C and stopped by adding 50 μL of 2 M H2SO4 (Anidrol, PAP.A-8718). Absorbance was determined at 492 nm in a SpectraMax i3 microplate reader (Molecular Devices). Hydrogen peroxidase standards were used, and the linear regression data were calculated with Microsoft Excel software. Specific activity was expressed as μM/min/mg of venom.

Minimum coagulant dose (MCD)

The coagulant activity of the venom pools was assessed in citrated plasma according to Theakston and Reid [70]. Briefly, 100 μL of plasma were incubated at 37°C for 60 s. After the incubation, 50 μL of various doses of venom (15.625−1,000 μg) were mixed to the plasma and clotting times were measured in a coagulometer (MaxCoag, MEDMAX). The Minimum Coagulant Dose (MCD) was defined as the minimum amount of venom that induced coagulation of plasma in 60 s at 37°C.

Hemorrhagic activity

The hemorrhagic activity of BmN and Bm>4 venoms was determined according to Nadur-Andrade et al. [71] and Gutiérrez et al. [72]. To reduce the number of animals used in this test, doses were calculated only from the most extreme groups (neonate and adult, male and female venoms were mixed). Groups of male Swiss mice weighing 18–22 g (n = 3 for each venom and for control) were injected intradermally in the abdomen with 20 μg of venom (100 μL of solution/mouse) dissolved in sterilized 0.15 M NaCl; control group was injected with only 100 μL of sterilized 0.15 M NaCl. After 3 h, the animals were euthanized in a CO2 chamber, and the abdominal skin was removed, photographed and digitalized. The hemorrhagic area was obtained using the ImageJ software version 1.53a.

Lethal dose 50%

The Median Lethal Dose (LD50) is the dose required to kill half the members of a tested population. To reduce the number of animals used in this test, doses were calculated only from the most extreme groups (neonate and adult, in both groups male and female venoms were mixed). The LD50 of B. moojeni venoms was determined in groups of male Swiss mice weighing 18–22 g (n = 5 for each dose), injected intraperitoneally with five doses (500 μL of solution containing 57, 88, 136, 211 or 327 μg/mouse) of each venom (BmN and Bm>4) dissolved in sterilized 0.15 M NaCl. The number of deaths were recorded during 48 h and the venom’s LD50 was calculated by probit analysis [73].

Immunointeraction B. moojeni venom vs. antibothropic serum

Western blotting

Venom samples (20 μg) separated by 1-DE were electro-transferred in a semi-dry system (Trans-Blot Turbo Transfer System, Bio-Rad) onto a PVDF membrane, previously equilibrated in transfer buffer (25 mM Tris, 192 mM glycine (Anidrol, PAP.A-0999), 20% ethanol (Merck, 1117274000)). It was used a constant current of 1.0 A and voltage up to 25 V for 35 min. Thereafter, the membrane was blocked with TBS-milk (Tris-buffered 0.15 M NaCl containing 5% non-fat milk and 0.1% Tween 20 (Sigma, P1379)) overnight at 4°C. The membrane was washed twice with wash buffer (10 mM Tris, 150 mM NaCl, 0.1% Tween 20; pH 7.5) and incubated with 1:5,000 commercial antibothropic serum for 2 h at 4°C. After 3 washes using wash buffer, the membrane was exposed to 1:10,000 peroxidase-labelled anti-horse IgG (Sigma, A6917) for 2 h at 4°C. The membrane was washed 3 times again and reaction was developed with diaminobenzidine (Sigma, D8001) and H2O2 (Merck, 1072090250) [74]. The commercial antibothropic serum is produced at Instituto Butantan by hyperimmunization of horses using a mixture of Bothrops species venoms: B. jararaca (50%), B. alternatus (12.5%), B. jararacussu (12.5%), B. moojeni (12.5%), and B. neuwiedi complex (12.5%).

Statistical analysis

Results are expressed as mean ± SD of triplicates. We compared the venoms’ activities from snakes of the same sex of different ages by one-way ANOVA with Tukey as post-hoc test. Male and female venoms of the same age, as well as hemorrhagic activity and LD50, were analyzed by Student’s t-test using GraphPad Prism 7.03 software; p < 0.05 was considered significant. Statistical significance is listed in S2 Table.

Results

Compositional analysis

An ontogenetic variation in the composition of the venoms is notable on 1-DE profiles of males and females B. moojeni at different ages (Fig 2). According to previous works [31, 33, 7579], protein families were assigned. Therefore, a single band of ~150 kDa, absent in both neonate venoms (BmN), may correspond to phosphodiesterase (PDE). Likewise, a band between 20 and 25 kDa, possibly P-I SVMP, nerve growth factor (NGF), and/or cysteine-rich secretory protein (CRISP), appears in the venoms of individuals from Bm1 onward. The bands between 50 and 75 kDa that decrease in intensity are most likely P-III SVMPs and LAAOs. The two bands between 25 and 37 kDa that are absent only in the venom of male BmN, female BmN and Bm1 are located in the region usually assigned to SVSP, CRISP, and P-I and P-II SVMP, where other bands got more intense in the pools of older snakes. Additionally, in the area comprising bands of 10–15 kDa are PLA2s and CTLs, three bands show increased intensity in older pools and one shows the opposite.

Fig 2. One-dimensional electrophoresis (1-DE, 15%) profiles of male and female B. moojeni at different ages.

Fig 2

The samples (20 μg) were applied to the gel under reducing conditions (β-mercaptoethanol) and the protein bands were stained with Coomassie Blue G-250, according to the manufacturer’s recommendation. Molecular weight markers (Dual Color Precision Plus, BioRad) are shown on the left side. PDE: phosphodiesterase; SVMP: snake venom metalloprotease; LAAO: L-amino acid oxidase; SVSP: snake venom serine protease; CRISP: cysteine-rich secretory protein; NGF: nerve growth factor; PLA2: phospholipase A2; CTL: C-type lectin.

We found some quantitative differences in the chromatographic profiles of the venoms studied (Figs 3 and 4). Protein families were assigned to each region in the chromatograms according to a previous report [11]. An intense peak before 20 min (disintegrin–DIS) was observed in all venoms. This peak was highest in female BmN and Bm<1 (Fig 4), and in Bm1 of males (Fig 3), while in the other venom samples it remained similar. After this initial peak, some weak peaks (also DIS) appeared near 20 min, more intense and diversified in the neonate groups and decreased in both aspects in older groups. The peaks found between 40 and 50 min (non-catalytic PLA2) in the male chromatograms gradually increased until Bm1 and remained in Bm2. Bm3 venom showed a decrease in these peaks and Bm>4 remained at a similar intensity in comparison to Bm2. In females, these peaks increased only in Bm3 and Bm>4. Only male Bm2 presented three peaks in this interval.

Fig 3. Venom profile of male B. moojeni at different ages by RP-HPLC.

Fig 3

Samples of 500 μg of lyophilized venom were dissolved in 0.1% trifluoroacetic acid (TFA; solution A) and submitted to RP-HPLC in a C18 column. Elution was carried out at 1 mL/min by applying a solution B (95% acetonitrile containing 0.1% TFA) gradient: 5% for 5 min; 5–25% for 10 min, 25–45% for 60 min, 45–70% for 10 min, 70–100% for 10 min, and 100% for 10 min. Absorbance was measured at 215 nm. *: marked peak that may be related to collagenolytic activity. DIS: disintegrin; PLA2: phospholipase A2; SVSP: snake venom serine protease; SVMP: snake venom metalloprotease.

Fig 4. Venom profile of female B. moojeni at different ages by RP-HPLC.

Fig 4

Samples of 500 μg of lyophilized venom were dissolved in 0.1% trifluoroacetic acid (TFA; solution A) and submitted to RP-HPLC in a C18 column. Elution was carried out at 1 mL/min by applying a solution B (95% acetonitrile containing 0.1% TFA) gradient: 5% for 5 min; 5–25% for 10 min, 25–45% for 60 min, 45–70% for 10 min, 70–100% for 10 min, and 100% for 10 min. Absorbance was measured at 215 nm. *: marked peak that may be related to collagenolytic activity. DIS: disintegrin; PLA2: phospholipase A2; SVSP: snake venom serine protease; SVMP: snake venom metalloprotease.

An increase in variability was observed in proteins eluted between 50 and 70 min (SVSP, P-I SVMP, and D-49 PLA2), mainly in males Bm1 and Bm2. However, in Bm3 the peak intensity decreased and the pattern seemed to be maintained in Bm>4. In the final region of the chromatogram (predominantly P-III SVMP), it was also possible to observe an increase in variability and, in Bm2 and Bm>4, the appearing of a second high intensity peak (marked with * in Figs 3 and 4), which was not observed in Bm3. In fact, there was a noticeable loss of variability in this region in Bm3 venoms. It was also noticeable that, in general, the profiles of females’ venoms were more conserved at different ages when compared to that of males.

By LC-MS/MS analysis of the twelve venoms used in this work, the following protein families were obtained: bradykinin-potentiating peptide (BPP), calmodulin, CRISP, CTL, DIS, flavin monoamine oxidase (FMAO), glutaminyl-peptide cyclotransferase (GPC), hyaluronidase (HYA), Kunitz-type serine protease inhibitor (KUNI), LAAO, leucine zipper tumor suppressor (LZTS), NGF, nucleotidase (NUC), PDE, SVMP, PLA2, phospholipase B (PLB), phospholipase A2 inhibitor (PLI), SVSP, TNF receptor-associated factor 6 (TRAF6), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and waprin (WAP). The venoms presented all protein families listed, except for male Bm3 and female Bm>4 that did not show any S-49 PLA2 (S3 and S4 Tables and Fig 5). The protein families BPP, calmodulin, DIS, FMAO, GPC, KUNI, NGF, PDE, PLB, PLI, TRAF6, and WAP were grouped into “Others”, considering all venoms presented < 1% of each family.

Fig 5. Overview of protein families’ abundances in male and female B. moojeni venoms at different ages.

Fig 5

All venom pools were subjected to LC-MS/MS, and proteins were identified, quantified, and assigned to each protein family expressed as percentage. CRISP: cystein-rich secretory protein; HYA: hyaluronidase; NUC: nucleotidase; VEGF: vascular endothelial growth factor; LAAO: L-amino acid oxidase; LZTS: leucine zipper tumor suppressor; CTL: C-type lectin; SVSP: snake venom serine protease; SVMP: snake venom metalloprotease; PLA2: phospholipase A2. Others: included families that accounted for < 1% in all venoms: bradykinin-potentiating peptide, calmodulin, disintegrin, flavin monoamine oxidase, glutaminyl-peptide cyclotransferase, Kunitz-type serine protease inhibitor, nerve growth factor, phosphodiesterase, phospholipase B, phospholipase A2 inhibitor, TNF receptor-associated factor 6, and waprin.

Both male and female of the group BmN presented the highest abundance of CRISP, SVMP, and VEGF; CTL was found more abundant in Bm3 of both sexes; SVSP and HYA were higher in both Bm1 venoms. Higher abundance of LAAO was observed in the venoms of male Bm<1 and female Bm>4; LZTS was higher in males Bm3 and females Bm<1; as for NUC, higher abundance was observed in males BmN and females Bm>4; and finally, males Bm>4 and females Bm3 presented the highest abundance of PLA2. Lower relative abundance of HYA, LAAO, and overall SVMP were observed in both males and females Bm3 venoms. In the venoms of males Bm>4 and females Bm3 were identified low abundance of CRISP; in the case of CTL males Bm<1 and females BmN were lower; males Bm>4 and females BmN presented the lowest abundance of LZTS; NUC was lower in the venoms of males Bm2 and females BmN; PLA2 and SVSP were lower in males BmN, PLA2 in females Bm1 and SVSP in females Bm3; and finally, males Bm>4 and females Bm3 presented low abundance of VEGF. Analyzing each class of SVMP, we obtained the following: higher amounts of P-I were present in both BmN venoms and lower in Bm 3; P-II was higher in males and females Bm<1 venoms and lower in males Bm>4 and females Bm3; and male Bm<1 also had the greatest concentration of P-III, along with females BmN, while males and females Bm3 showed the lowest quantity of this class (Table 2). Altogether, it was possible to observe increasing quantities of PLA2 and a certain decrease of VEGF, P-I and P-III SVMP in both genders, as well as a decrease of P-II SVMP in females.

Table 2. Relative abundance of the protein families obtained in each venom by LC-MS/MS.

Male Female
BmN Bm<1 Bm1 Bm2 Bm3 Bm>4 BmN Bm<1 Bm1 Bm2 Bm3 Bm>4
BPP 0.04% 0.12% 0.06% 0.03% 0.03% 0.02% 0.30% 0.13% 0.18% 0.09% 0.02% 0.01%
Calmodulin 0.11% 0.04% 0.05% 0.09% 0.09% 0.01% 0.15% 0.10% 0.12% 0.11% 0.16% 0.13%
CRISP 1.6% 0.5% 0.3% 0.6% 0.5% 0.2% 0.7% 0.5% 0.3% 0.4% 0.2% 0.3%
CTL 7.7% 6.8% 9.6% 7.1% 30.0% 12.4% 6.7% 6.8% 16.3% 14.3% 23.0% 8.4%
DIS 0.0003% 0.0008% 0.0018% 0.0831% 0.0122% 0.0006% 0.0008% 0.0075% 0.0309% 0.0039% 0.0136% 0.0035%
FMAO 0.14% 0.07% 0.03% 0.03% 0.07% 0.04% 0.09% 0.06% 0.07% 0.06% 0.10% 0.04%
GPC 0.31% 0.22% 0.28% 0.56% 0.57% 0.63% 0.21% 0.30% 0.37% 0.49% 0.45% 0.48%
HYA 0.2% 1.2% 1.5% 0.9% 0.1% 0.2% 1.3% 0.9% 1.9% 1.3% 0.6% 1.7%
KUNI 0.01% 0.08% 0.14% 0.08% 0.02% 0.03% 0.07% 0.09% 0.07% 0.33% 0.18% 0.14%
LAAO 2.0% 2.3% 2.2% 1.6% 1.0% 1.6% 2.3% 2.5% 2.0% 2.5% 1.4% 2.5%
LZTS 3.3% 2.9% 2.3% 2.4% 5.0% 1.5% 1.7% 3.6% 2.9% 3.1% 1.9% 2.7%
NGF 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.10% 0.07% 0.08% 0.02% 0.01% 0.03% 0.09% 0.03% 0.09%
NUC 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.5% 0.9% 1.1% 0.7% 0.8% 1.1% 0.8% 0.7% 1.3%
PDE 0.53% 0.53% 0.49% 0.55% 0.59% 0.61% 0.59% 0.63% 0.80% 0.98% 0.50% 0.39%
P-I SVMP 15.0% 5.7% 3.3% 3.3% 1.3% 3.2% 7.4% 5.2% 3.9% 5.0% 1.5% 3.4%
P-II SVMP 5.6% 6.0% 3.6% 3.6% 5.3% 3.5% 5.8% 6.3% 3.5% 3.2% 2.5% 3.0%
P-III SVMP 20.7% 27.4% 14.4% 19.2% 10.7% 13.9% 28.7% 24.3% 17.8% 17.5% 6.8% 10.1%
D-49 PLA2 8.9% 6.1% 6.9% 10.7% 3.7% 14.8% 8.2% 7.0% 4.8% 3.4% 10.9% 4.1%
K-49 PLA2 11.7% 16.3% 29.7% 28.5% 19.0% 24.5% 15.6% 16.9% 17.3% 21.9% 33.8% 40.5%
S-49 PLA2 0.0002% 0.0229% 0.0007% 0.0040% 0.0000% 0.0002% 0.0112% 0.1258% 0.0003% 0.0012% 0.0004% 0.0000%
PLB 0.32% 0.39% 0.35% 0.33% 0.53% 0.35% 0.24% 0.37% 0.50% 0.49% 0.45% 0.31%
PLI 0.1362% 0.1473% 0.0395% 0.2108% 0.0337% 0.2014% 0.4713% 0.2335% 0.0158% 0.1050% 0.0001% 0.1098%
SVSP 17.4% 19.8% 23.1% 17.4% 19.7% 20.7% 15.6% 21.3% 25.6% 22.6% 14.5% 19.7%
TRAF6 0.00004% 0.00043% 0.00029% 0.00235% 0.00016% 0.00002% 0.00083% 0.00164% 0.00203% 0.00035% 0.00009% 0.00092%
VEGF 2.9% 2.4% 1.0% 2.2% 0.6% 0.4% 3.1% 1.6% 0.7% 1.1% 0.3% 0.6%
WAP 0.03% 0.06% 0.03% 0.06% 0.01% 0.02% 0.06% 0.04% 0.04% 0.07% 0.03% 0.02%

Percentage of each protein family identified and quantified in male and female B. moojeni venoms at different ages. BPP: bradykinin-potentiating peptide; CRISP: cystein-rich secretory protein; CTL: C-type lectin; DIS: disintegrin; FMAO: flavin monoamine oxidase; GPC: glutaminyl-peptide cyclotransferase; HYA: hyaluronidase; KUNI: Kunitz-type serine protease inhibitor; LAAO: L-amino acid oxidase; LZTS: leucine zipper tumor suppressor; NGF: nerve growth factor; NUC: nucleotidase; PDE: phosphodiesterase; SVMP: snake venom metalloprotease; PLA2: phospholipase A2; PLB: phospholipase B; PLI: phospholipase A2 inhibitor; SVSP: snake venom serine protease; TRAF6: TNF receptor-associated factor 6; VEGF: vascular endothelial growth factor; WAP: waprin.

Functional analysis

As one of the main effects caused by bothropic venom is the proteolytic activity, we assessed the effect of the venoms over casein and collagen. Increasing collagenolytic activity was observed according to the snakes age, except for Bm3, which showed an activity similar to that of Bm1 (Fig 6A). The most accentuated differences between males and females were seen in BmN, in which the activity of females was greater; and in Bm>4, in which the activity of males was higher than that of females, which remained the same as females Bm2.

Fig 6. In vitro activities of the venom of male and female B. moojeni at different ages.

Fig 6

Proteolytic activity over collagen (A) and casein (B), PLA2 activity over the synthetic substrate 4-nitro-3-octanoyloxy-benzoic acid (C), LAAO activity with L-methionine (D), and coagulant activity over human plasma (E). Statistical data of all the groups is shown in S2 Table.

Males’ venoms showed an increase in caseinolytic activity according to age, but the same was not observed in females’ venom, in which there was an increase in the activity until Bm2 and a decrease in the last two ages (Fig 6B). In addition, females’ venoms activity were higher at all ages than males’, except for Bm>4, when males’ venoms had greater activity.

The PLA2 activity (Fig 6C) of the venoms did not appear to be related to the age of the snakes, since in males and females this activity had no tendency to increase or decrease. It was not possible to establish whether the gender influenced this activity, considering that in females Bm2 and Bm>4 the PLA2 activity was higher than in males of the same age, while in Bm3 it was lower. However, the PLA2 activity of females appeared to be more stable than that of males.

In general, LAAO activity (Fig 6D) did not change significantly, however in Bm>4, mainly in females, there was a considerable increase in relation to other ages. In addition, females appeared to have greater activity than males, except in intermediate ages (Bm2 and Bm3), in which there were no significant differences.

The MCD proved to be stable during the animals’ first year of life, with a large increase in Bm2 in both sexes (Fig 6E). In females, the coagulant activity seemed to gradually decreased in the last three groups, while in males, it decreased in Bm3 and increased to an intermediate value between Bm2 and Bm3, and in Bm>4. Although statistical difference was observed only between BmN and Bm2, males’ venoms were more coagulant than that of females in all ages, except for Bm3.

Hemorrhagic halos ranged between 0.78−1.79 cm2 (mean: 1.17 ± 0.55 cm2) and 1.58−1.98 cm2 (mean: 1.80 ± 0.20 cm2) after injection of 20 μg of neonates’ and adults’ venoms (males and females mixed), respectively. Although the values obtained were not statistically different considering the standard deviation (Fig 7A), Bm>4 produced hemorrhagic halos more intense than those of BmN (data not shown).

Fig 7. In vivo assays of neonates and adults B. moojeni venom.

Fig 7

Hemorrhagic activity (A) was carried out by measuring the halos after intradermal injection of 20 μg venom. Median lethal dose (B) was determined by intraperitoneal injection of different doses of venom and the use of probit to obtain the values. The mice were observed for 6 consecutive hours and the number of deaths registered at each hour and 24 h after the injection of BmN (C) and Bm>4 (D) venoms.

As for LD50, despite the variations observed throughout the other tests, BmN and Bm>4 did not show significant difference: 113.02 μg/animal (confidence interval: 83.12−161.04 μg/mouse) and 111.75 μg/animal (confidence interval: 72.14−153.92 μg/animal), respectively (Fig 7B). After the injection of the venoms, mice were observed for the first 6 h. During this time, we noticed that in higher doses, mice injected with Bm>4 venom seemed to die faster than those injected with BmN venom (Fig 7C and 7D). After this time and with the two lower doses (57 and 88 μg/animal), no mice died.

Immunointeraction

Western blotting showed that the venom proteins, in general, were recognized by the serum, since the revealed bands formed a profile remarkably similar to the gels (Fig 8). However, there was a shortage of bands in the region between 25 and 37 kDa. It was possible to observe that the recognition of a band in the region between 10−15 kDa decreased with age, the opposite of what was observed in the 1-DE, in which the band intensified in this region.

Fig 8. Immunointeraction between B. moojeni venoms and commercial antibothropic serum.

Fig 8

The interaction of the proteins in B. moojeni venom with the antivenom produced at Instituto Butantan was assayed by western blotting. The samples were submitted to 1-DE, the proteins were electrotransferred onto a PVDF membrane, and incubated with the antibothropic serum. SVMP: snake venom metalloprotease; LAAO: L-amino acid oxidase; SVSP: snake venom serine protease; CRISP: cysteine-rich secretory protein; NGF: nerve growth factor; PLA2: phospholipase A2; CTL: C-type lectin.

Discussion

In this work, we observed ontogenetic shifts, especially related to coagulation, proteolytic, and, to some extent, hemorrhagic activities of B. moojeni venom. These differences may influence the outcome of a snakebite caused by a neonate, juvenile, or adult snake.

Regarding the composition, some clear differences were observed. Ontogenetic variations in 1-DE profile have been previously reported in other Bothrops species. As observed herein, some high molecular weight bands showed decreasing intensity and others were lost, as previously observed in the venoms of B. jararaca [48], B. asper [50], and B. atrox [50, 80]. López-Lozano and collaborators observed the appearing of a ~23 kDa band and the change of low molecular weight proteins in B. atrox venom [80]. In addition, the differences between venoms of neonates and adults observed herein were quite comparable to those obtained in B. jararaca [49]. Moreover, Guércio and colleagues [41] analyzed the venoms of B. atrox at three life stages and noticed that the venom of juveniles presented higher amounts of P-III SVMP, and more P-I and P-II SVMP in adults. Although we indeed obtained higher abundance of P-III SVMP at younger ages, the opposite was not observed with P-I and P-II SVMPs in our LC-MS/MS analysis (Fig 5 and Table 2). This might be caused by the different approaches utilized to study the venoms, considering it is known to cause differences in results [81, 82].

The protein composition analyzed by LC-MS/MS of the venoms showed evident ontogenetic differences, with differentiation of some protein families. Although there are some proteins missing in specific groups, there is no exclusive protein family present in any age or gender group, but there is a substantial quantitative variability of these families related to age. It is possible to observe a decrease of overall SVMP from Bm1 onward, while PLA2 increases in both genders, earlier in males (Bm1) and later in females (Bm3). The astonishing relative abundance of PLA2 obtained in some venoms in this work were previously reported in the adult venom of B. asper [83], although not usual. Curiously, some venoms presented great amounts of CTL (> 10%), which is also not usual, but have been observed for B. jararaca, B. alternatus, and B. atrox [11, 84].

Interestingly, a leucine zipper tumor suppressor 1 (K4GPX1) was identified and considerably quantified (1.5−5.0%). According to the information available at UniProtKB (https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/K4GPX1), this protein was also identified in B. asper venom. There is only one work related to the subject [85], where the authors sequenced genes in order to clarify some phylogenetic relationships within Squamata.

Comparing the RP-HPLC profile of the venoms used herein with their respective collagenolytic activity, a pattern could be observed (Figs 3, 4, and 6A). A similar occurrence was reported for adult B. jararaca venoms by Galizio et al. [34] and for adult B. moojeni venoms by Aguiar et al. [86], in which some individuals showed close to no collagenolytic activity that was related to the absence of one to two peaks in the region comprising P-III SVMPs, which may indicate the presence of a collagen-specific protease.

As observed herein, higher proteolytic activity presented by adult venoms was reported by other authors [26, 87], including Furtado et al. studying B. moojeni [28]. Interestingly, caseinolytic activity among females increased until 2 years-old and decreased afterwards. In a previous work with B. jararaca venoms, the newborns presented lower activity than adults over collagen, but obtained similar values between the pools over casein [49]. Overall, our results showed that females were likely to have higher caseinolytic activity than males (except for Bm>4), corroborating previous studies in which variation according to gender was observed [42, 88]. Higher proteolytic activity in females’ adult venoms might be related to the snakes’ size. Female-biased sexual size dimorphism is present in Bothrops genus, so adult females are heavier, larger, and present a relatively bigger head compared to adult males [25, 8890]. An ontogenetic shift in diet from ectotherm to endotherm organisms was observed for B. moojeni [25]. Despite the fact that this species keeps feeding on ectotherms for a long period of their development, larger animals, especially females, tend to feed mainly on mammal preys [24, 91].

In contrast to the proteolytic assay, LAAO and PLA2 activities did not show such an evident ontogenetic shift. A significant difference between genders was found in all values of enzymatic activities in the older groups (Bm>4), in which males showed greater proteolytic activity, while females in LAAO and PLA2 activities. However, it is difficult to affirm that such differences are related to sex, due to the inconsistency along different ages, especially in caseinolytic activity, where females showed much greater activity than males in all other ages, except Bm4. Sexual-related difference in LAAO activity of B. moojeni adult venom was observed elsewhere [33], but the females’ venom pool showed higher activity than that of males’. On the other hand, when individual B. moojeni venoms were analyzed, no gender seemed to present higher or lower activity [86]. In contrast, PLA2 activity in both aforementioned studies with B. moojeni venom [33, 86] was higher among males’ venoms, and it was observed in this work only with Bm1 (no statistical difference) and Bm3. Snake venom PLA2s from the Viperidae family can be divided into two groups: catalytically active (D-49) and enzymatically inactive (K-49, S-49, R-49, Q-49 and N-49) [79, 92, 93]. The presence of both types of PLA2s in different proportions and the variability of catalytic efficiency (specific activity) could explain why the PLA2 activity in the enzymatic assays did not reflect the increase of PLA2 found in LC-MS/MS [94, 95].

Concerning the procoagulant effect of the venoms, in both genders the first three ages analyzed presented high coagulant activity upon plasma, whereas Bm2, Bm3, and Bm>4 showed low activity. This result corroborates previous works [49, 50, 80], in which adults presented lower activity compared to neonates/juveniles, a common characteristic among Bothrops genus. Additionally, at all ages (except Bm3) males had higher coagulant activity. Sexual-related differences in coagulant activity have been reported among B. jararaca juveniles [96] and adults [42], in addition to adult B. atrox [37], although another work with newborn and adult B. jararaca did not present variation according to sex [36]. Moreover, Aguiar et al. [86] studied adult B. moojeni venoms and, from the 10 females, five had lower coagulant activity upon plasma than three males, while two females presented similar MCD than one male. However, since the study analyzed individual venoms, it is hard to compare with the results obtained herein, as pools were utilized. As pointed out by Galizio et al. [34], individual venoms exert great influence over the pool, that does not necessarily reflect an average of all venoms.

So far, some compositional and specific activities presented ontogenetic-related variation, such as the proteolytic and coagulant activities, as well as SVMPs and PLA2s abundances. It is also interesting to notice that the variation did not increase or decrease continuously. This may be influenced by the pools’ compositions, since the venoms were milked from different snake specimens to compose the pool of each age instead of following the same animals during their development. Besides, the activities do not necessarily increase/decrease constantly as observed previously with other species [29, 51]. In addition, enzymes may not display the same catalytic potency and subtract specificity, and the synergistic action of the venom compounds may influence the outcome of a snakebite; thereby, in vivo tests are necessary to better understand the importance of such differences concerning snakes’ evolutionary history (feeding and defense) and clinical importance (ophidian accidents). Furthermore, in order to reduce the number of mice in this study and considering that the focus is the ontogenetic variability, in vivo tests were performed using a mixture of male and female pools, thus composing a pool of neonates and adults.

Our results regarding hemorrhagic activity suggest that neonate venoms might be less hemorrhagic than of adults. This would be in accordance with previous works, where higher doses of newborn venoms are needed to induce hemorrhage [48, 49]. Likewise, LD50 did not present a statistically significant difference, similar to the result found by Furtado et al. [28] and Andrade et al. [26]. Interestingly, the fact that Bm>4 seemed to have killed the mice faster, especially in the higher doses (Fig 7C and 7D) might indicate prey preference among adults. Studies comparing the LD50 between B. moojeni, B. jararaca, and B. alternatus showed that the lethality of the venom of both B. moojeni and B. jararaca, species that undergo diet shift from juveniles to adults, are lower to mice and higher to frogs when they are juveniles, but when adults it is the opposite; in the case of B. alternatus, a species that feeds only on mammals and does not change its diet regardless of age, the LD50 of juveniles and adults were virtually the same for either frogs or mice [26, 47].

To test the immunoreaction of the proteins present in the venoms with the antibothropic serum produced at Instituto Butantan, a western blotting assay was performed. Despite displaying a similar pattern to the 1-DE, some areas showed differences. The lower recognition of bands in the region between 25 and 37 kDa was previously observed with many Bothrops species [10]. Additionally, Amorim and collaborators [33] observed that B. moojeni females’ venom were better recognized by the serum than the males’ venom, a difference noticeable only with Bm1, Bm2, and Bm3 venoms, although subtle.

Considering how snake venom individual variability may affect the pool [34, 37], we need to highlight that the Bm3 venoms used in this work had a particular characteristic: they were all from individuals of the same litter and male Bm3 was composed by only one individual. Collagenolytic activity, for example, as a proteolytic activity, is expected to be higher in older snakes [28, 49, 51] but Bm3 venoms showed an activity similar to BmN, Bm<1, and Bm1. Furthermore, the chromatographic profiles obtained for Bm3 venoms were more similar to BmN than to any of the other venoms. Although the venoms of adult snakes are expected to be more proteolytic and less coagulant than newborn and juvenile venoms, previous works with individual adult venoms showed that some adults may present these two activities at levels close to those of younger snakes [34, 86]. The venoms used in this work were milked from snakes raised in captivity (neonates and juveniles were also born from individuals raised in captivity), under controlled environment conditions, and same feeding schedule; nonetheless, ontogenetic and sexual differences were still observed. Additionally, the animals we had available to collect venoms originated or were born from snakes from different locations. This might have influenced some results, as it is known that geographic location may cause venom variation [9799], although a previous work by our group with individual B. moojeni did not notice differences related to geographic origin [86] and, to the best of our knowledge, there are no previous studies regarding geographic variation of B. moojeni venom.

The reason behind intraspecific variability of venoms is still not completely clear. Studies comparing the venom gland transcriptomes and the venom proteomes were carried out to enlighten snake venom composition [84, 100103]; these works showed that the abundance of genes in the venom gland and of proteins in the venom itself may match or not. Amazonas and colleagues [84] pointed out that “core function” loci, transcripts that encode multifunctional proteins, corresponds to toxins that undergo ontogenetic shift in B. atrox and suggested that they may be controlled by promoters related to hormones involved in ontogenetic development. Durban and colleagues suggested that microRNAs play an important role by modulating ontogenetic shift in venom composition in Crotalus simus simus [104], C. simus, C. tzabcan, and C. culminatus [105] through up- and down-regulation of genes.

Conclusions

Ontogenetic variation has been extensively studied as an important evolutionary feature and as a medically relevant matter. In this work, we observed that from neonates to 1 year-old, the pools showed low collagenolytic and high procoagulant activities, and Bm2 and Bm>4 presented the opposite, characteristics commonly observed in adult venoms in other species. Although LD50 was very similar between neonates and adults, when time of death was considered, we noticed that neonates’ venom seemed to kill the mice slower. Considering that these animals are generalists, this result may indicate the prey preference inherent of this species, even when maintained in captivity since previous generations and fed mammals since they were born. The variation observed in this work, together with many others, highlight the importance of studying intraspecific variability for ecological, evolutionary, and medical purposes.

Supporting information

S1 Raw images. Original images of 1-DE and western blotting used in this work without any editing.

(PDF)

S1 Table. Individual information of the Brazilian lancehead used in this work.

Identification: code used to identify each individual. Group: the group at where each individual was assigned to compose the pools. Sex: ♂—male; ♀—female. Weight (g): the weight of each specimen when the venom was milked. SVL−Total length (cm): snout-vent length and total length of the animals when the samples were collected. Localization: geographic origin of the individual or the parents.

(XLSX)

S2 Table. Statistical data of in vitro activities.

Statistical difference between ages of the same sex (one-way ANOVA) and between both sexes of the same age (Student’s t-test). NS: no statistical difference.

(XLSX)

S3 Table. Proteins identified and quantified in the venoms of males’ and females’ Brazilian lancehead at different ages.

Identification of the proteins in each of the twelve B. moojeni venoms through label-free quantification by high resolution LC-MS/MS considering the average intensity of the three most intense peptides of each identified protein.

(XLSX)

S4 Table. Proteins identified by LC-MS/MS and their peptide sequences.

Complete data of the protein identification through label-free quantification by high resolution LC-MS/MS.

(XLSX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by grants from Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) (1736737 to DMH), Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), and (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) (2018/25899-0 to LJT, 2018/14724-4 to NCG, 2017/20106-9 to AKT, 2017/16908-2 to KdM-Z, and 2018/25786-0 to AMT-A). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Gutiérrez JM, Calvete JJ, Habib AG, Harrison RA, Williams DJ, Warrell DA. Snakebite envenoming. Nature reviews. Disease primers. 2017. p. 17063. doi: 10.1038/nrdp.2017.63 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Brasil M da S do. Acidente por animais peçonhentos—Notificações registradas no sistema de informação de agravos de notificação—Brasil. 2020. Available: http://tabnet.datasus.gov.br/cgi/tabcgi.exe?sinannet/cnv/animaisbr.def [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Glaudas X, Glennon KL, Martins M, Luiselli L, Fearn S, Trembath DF, et al. Foraging mode, relative prey size and diet breadth: A phylogenetically explicit analysis of snake feeding ecology. J Anim Ecol. 2019;88: 757–767. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.12972 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Casewell NR, Jackson TNW, Laustsen AH, Sunagar K. Causes and consequences of snake venom variation. Trends in Pharmacological Sciences. 2020. pp. 570–581. doi: 10.1016/j.tips.2020.05.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bottrall JL, Madaras F, Biven CD, Venning MG, Mirtschin PJ. Proteolytic activity of Elapid and Viperid snake venoms and its implication to digestion. J Venom Res. 2010;1: 18–28. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Thomas RG, Pough FH. The effect of rattlesnake venom on digestion of prey. Toxicon. 1979;17: 221–228. doi: 10.1016/0041-0101(79)90211-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Rosenfeld G. Symptomatology, Pathology, and Treatment of Snake Bites in South America. In: Bücherl W, Buckley EE, editors. Venomous Animals and their Venoms. New York: Academic Press; 1971. pp. 345–384. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-12-138902-4.50021–0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Rodrigues Sgrignolli L, Florido Mendes GE, Carlos CP, Burdmann EA. Acute kidney injury caused by Bothrops snake venom. Nephron—Clin Pract. 2011;119: 131–137. doi: 10.1159/000324228 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Doley R, Kini RM. Protein complexes in snake venom. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences. 2009. pp. 2851–2871. doi: 10.1007/s00018-009-0050-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Queiroz GP, Pessoa LA, Portaro FCV, Furtado M de FD, Tambourgi D V. Interspecific variation in venom composition and toxicity of Brazilian snakes from Bothrops genus. Toxicon. 2008;52: 842–851. doi: 10.1016/j.toxicon.2008.10.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sousa LF, Nicolau CA, Peixoto PS, Bernardoni JL, Oliveira SS, Portes-Junior JA, et al. Comparison of Phylogeny, Venom Composition and Neutralization by Antivenom in Diverse Species of Bothrops Complex. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013;7: e2442. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002442 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Fox JW, Serrano SMT. Timeline of key events in snake venom metalloproteinase research. J Proteomics. 2009;72. doi: 10.1016/j.jprot.2009.01.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kini RM. Serine proteases affecting blood coagulation and fibrinolysis from snake venoms. Pathophysiology of Haemostasis and Thrombosis. 2006. pp. 200–204. doi: 10.1159/000092424 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Braud S, Bon C, Wisner A. Snake venom proteins acting on hemostasis. Biochimie. 2000. pp. 851–859. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9084(00)01178-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kini RM. Excitement ahead: Structure, function and mechanism of snake venom phospholipase A2 enzymes. Toxicon. 2003;42: 827–840. doi: 10.1016/j.toxicon.2003.11.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Curti B, Massey V, Zmudka M. Inactivation of snake venom L-amino acid oxidase by freezing. J Biol Chem. 1968;243: 2306–2314. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Munekiyo SM, Mackessy SP. Effects of temperature and storage conditions on the electrophoretic, toxic and enzymatic stability of venom components. Comp Biochem Physiol—B Biochem Mol Biol. 1998;119: 119–127. doi: 10.1016/s0305-0491(97)00294-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Tashima AK, Zelanis A, Kitano ES, Ianzer D, Melo RL, Rioli V, et al. Peptidomics of three Bothrops snake venoms: Insights into the molecular diversification of proteomes and peptidomes. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2012;11: 1245–1262. doi: 10.1074/mcp.M112.019331 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Du XY, Clemetson KJ. Snake venom L-amino acid oxidases. Toxicon. 2002. pp. 659–665. doi: 10.1016/s0041-0101(02)00102-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Arlinghaus FT, Eble JA. C-type lectin-like proteins from snake venoms. Toxicon. 2012;60. doi: 10.1016/j.toxicon.2012.03.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Silva CJ, Jorge MT, Ribeiro LA. Epidemiology of snakebite in a central region of Brazil. Toxicon. 2003;41: 251–255. doi: 10.1016/s0041-0101(02)00287-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kouyoumdjian JA, Polizelli C. Snake bites accidents caused by Bothrops moojeni: Report of 37 cases. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo. 1988;30: 424–432. doi: 10.1590/S0036-46651988000600007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.de Carvalho MA, Nogueira FN. Snakes from the urban area of Cuiabá, Mato Grosso: Ecological aspects and associated snakebites. Cad saúde pública / Ministério da Saúde, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Esc Nac Saúde Pública. 1998;14: 753–763. doi: 10.1590/s0102-311x1998000400017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Martins M, Marques OA V, Sazima I. Ecological and phylogenetic correlates of feeding habits in Neotropical pitvipers of the genus Bothrops. Biol Vipers. 2002;307: 328. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Nogueira C, Sawaya RJ, Martins M. Ecology of the Pitviper, Bothrops moojeni, in the Brazilian Cerrado. J Herpetol. 2003;37: 653–659. doi: 10.1670/120-02A [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Andrade D V., Abe AS, Dos Santos MC. Is the venom related to diet and tail color during Bothrops moojeni ontogeny? J Herpetol. 1996;30: 285–288. doi: 10.2307/1565528 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Chippaux JP, Williams V, White J. Snake venom variability: Methods of study, results and interpretation. Toxicon. 1991. pp. 1279–1303. doi: 10.1016/0041-0101(91)90116-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Furtado MFD, Maruyama M, Kamiguti AS, Antonio LC. Comparative study of nine Bothrops snake venoms from adult female snakes and their offspring. Toxicon. 1991;29: 219–226. doi: 10.1016/0041-0101(91)90106-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Santoro ML, do Carmo T, Cunha BHL, Alves AF, Zelanis A, Serrano SM de T, et al. Ontogenetic Variation in Biological Activities of Venoms from Hybrids between Bothrops erythromelas and Bothrops neuwiedi Snakes. PLoS One. 2016;10: e0145516. Available: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145516 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Lourenço A, Zorzella Creste CF, Curtolo de Barros L, Delazari dos Santos L, Pimenta DC, Barraviera B, et al. Individual venom profiling of Crotalus durissus terrificus specimens from a geographically limited region: Crotamine assessment and captivity evaluation on the biological activities. Toxicon. 2013;69: 75–81. doi: 10.1016/j.toxicon.2013.01.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Zelanis A, Menezes MC, Kitano ES, Liberato T, Tashima AK, Pinto AFM, et al. Proteomic identification of gender molecular markers in Bothrops jararaca venom. J Proteomics. 2016;139: 26–37. doi: 10.1016/j.jprot.2016.02.030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Sousa LF, Portes-Junior JA, Nicolau CA, Bernardoni JL, Nishiyama MY Jr, Amazonas DR, et al. Functional proteomic analyses of Bothrops atrox venom reveals phenotypes associated with habitat variation in the Amazon. J Proteomics. 2017;159: 32–46. doi: 10.1016/j.jprot.2017.03.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Amorim FG, Costa TR, Baiwir D, De Pauw E, Quinton L, Sampaio SV. Proteopeptidomic, functional and immunoreactivity characterization of Bothrops moojeni snake venom: Influence of snake gender on venom composition. Toxins (Basel). 2018;10: 177. doi: 10.3390/toxins10050177 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Galizio N da C, Serino-Silva C, Stuginski DR, Abreu PAE, Sant’Anna SS, Grego KF, et al. Compositional and functional investigation of individual and pooled venoms from long-term captive and recently wild-caught Bothrops jararaca snakes. J Proteomics. 2018;186: 56–70. doi: 10.1016/j.jprot.2018.07.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Tasima LJ, Serino-Silva C, Hatakeyama DM, Nishiduka ES, Tashima AK, Sant’Anna SS, et al. Crotamine in Crotalus durissus: Distribution according to subspecies and geographic origin, in captivity or nature. J Venom Anim Toxins Incl Trop Dis. 2020;26: e20190053. doi: 10.1590/1678-9199-JVATITD-2019-0053 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Saad E, Barros LC, Biscola N, Pimenta DC, Barraviera SRCS, Barraviera B, et al. Intraspecific variation of biological activities in venoms from wild and captive Bothrops jararaca. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health—Part A: Current Issues. 2012. pp. 1081–1090. doi: 10.1080/15287394.2012.697839 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Hatakeyama DM, Tasima LJ, Bravo-Tobar CA, Serino-Silva C, Tashima AK, Rodrigues CFB, et al. Venom complexity of Bothrops atrox (common lancehead) siblings. J Venom Anim Toxins Incl Trop Dis. 2020;26: e20200018. doi: 10.1590/1678-9199-JVATITD-2020-0018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Williams V, White J. Variation in the composition of the venom from a single specimen of Pseudonaja textilis (common brown snake) over one year. Toxicon. 1992;30: 202–206. doi: 10.1016/0041-0101(92)90473-i [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Daltry JC, Wüster W, Thorpe RS. Diet and snake venom evolution. Nature. 1996;379: 537–542. doi: 10.1038/379537a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Cavinato RA, Remold H, Kipnis TL. Purification and variability in thrombin-like activity of Bothrops atrox venom from different geographic regions. Toxicon. 1998;36: 257–267. doi: 10.1016/s0041-0101(97)00129-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Guércio RAP, Shevchenko A, Shevchenko A, López-Lozano JL, Paba J, Sousa M V., et al. Ontogenetic variations in the venom proteome of the Amazonian snake Bothrops atrox. Proteome Sci. 2006;4. doi: 10.1186/1477-5956-4-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Menezes MC, Furtado MF, Travaglia-Cardoso SR, Camargo ACM, Serrano SMT. Sex-based individual variation of snake venom proteome among eighteen Bothrops jararaca siblings. Toxicon. 2006;47: 304–312. doi: 10.1016/j.toxicon.2005.11.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Pimenta DC, Prezoto BC, Konno K, Melo RL, Furtado MF, Camargo ACM, et al. Mass spectrometric analysis of the individual variability of Bothrops jararaca venom peptide fraction. Evidence for sex-based variation among the bradykinin-potentiating peptides. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 2007;21: 1034–1042. doi: 10.1002/rcm.2931 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Massey DJ, Calvete JJ, Sánchez EE, Sanz L, Richards K, Curtis R, et al. Venom variability and envenoming severity outcomes of the Crotalus scutulatus scutulatus (Mojave rattlesnake) from Southern Arizona. J Proteomics. 2012;75: 2576–2587. doi: 10.1016/j.jprot.2012.02.035 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Freitas-De-Sousa LA, Amazonas DR, Sousa LF, Sant’Anna SS, Nishiyama MY, Serrano SMT, et al. Comparison of venoms from wild and long-term captive Bothrops atrox snakes and characterization of Batroxrhagin, the predominant class PIII metalloproteinase from the venom of this species. Biochimie. 2015;118: 60–70. doi: 10.1016/j.biochi.2015.08.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Kouyoumdjian JA, Polizelli C. Snake bite accidents caused by Bothrops moojeni: Clinical picture related to the animal length. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo. 1989;31: 84–90. doi: 10.1590/s0036-46651989000200004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Andrade D V., Abe AS. Relationship of venom ontogeny and diet in Bothrops. Herpetologica. 1999;55: 200–204. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Zelanis A, Tashima AK, Rocha MMT, Furtado MF, Camargo ACM, Ho PL, et al. Analysis of the ontogenetic variation in the venom proteome/peptidome of Bothrops jararaca reveals different strategies to deal with prey. J Proteome Res. 2010;9: 2278–2291. doi: 10.1021/pr901027r [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Antunes TC, Yamashita KM, Barbaro KC, Saiki M, Santoro ML. Comparative analysis of newborn and adult Bothrops jararaca snake venoms. Toxicon. 2010;56: 1443–1458. doi: 10.1016/j.toxicon.2010.08.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Saldarriaga MM, Otero R, Núñez V, Toro MF, Díaz A, Gutiérrez JM. Ontogenetic variability of Bothrops atrox and Bothrops asper snake venoms from Colombia. Toxicon. 2003;42: 405–411. doi: 10.1016/s0041-0101(03)00171-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Zelanis A, de Souza Ventura J, Chudzinski-Tavassi AM, Furtado M de FD. Variability in expression of Bothrops insularis snake venom proteases: An ontogenetic approach. Comp Biochem Physiol—C Toxicol Pharmacol. 2007;145: 601–609. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpc.2007.02.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Pla D, Sanz L, Sasa M, Acevedo ME, Dwyer Q, Durban J, et al. Proteomic analysis of venom variability and ontogeny across the arboreal palm-pitvipers (genus Bothriechis). J Proteomics. 2017;152: 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.jprot.2016.10.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Gutiérrez JM, dos Santos MC, de Fatima Furtado M, Rojas G. Biochemical and pharmacological similarities between the venoms of newborn Crotalus durissus durissus and adult Crotalus durissus terrificus rattlesnakes. Toxicon. 1991;29: 1273–1277. doi: 10.1016/0041-0101(91)90201-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Lomonte B, Gené JA, Gutiérrez J, Cerdas L. Estudio comparativo de los venenos de serpiente Cascabel (Crotalus durissus durissus) de ejemplares adultos y recien nacidos. Toxicon. 1983;21: 379–384. doi: 10.1016/0041-0101(83)90094-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Hayes WK. Ontogeny of striking, prey-handling and envenomation behavior of prairie rattlesnakes (Crotalus v. viridis). Toxicon. 1991;29: 867–875. doi: 10.1016/0041-0101(91)90223-e [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Mackessy SP, Leroy J, Mociño-Deloya E, Setser K, Bryson RW, Saviola AJ. Venom ontogeny in the mexican lance-headed rattlesnake (Crotalus polystictus). Toxins (Basel). 2018;10: 271. doi: 10.3390/toxins10070271 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Modahl CM, Mukherjee AK, Mackessy SP. An analysis of venom ontogeny and prey-specific toxicity in the Monocled Cobra (Naja kaouthia). Toxicon. 2016;119: 8–20. doi: 10.1016/j.toxicon.2016.04.049 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Madrigal M, Sanz L, Flores-Díaz M, Sasa M, Núñez V, Alape-Girón A, et al. Snake venomics across genus Lachesis. Ontogenetic changes in the venom composition of Lachesis stenophrys and comparative proteomics of the venoms of adult Lachesis melanocephala and Lachesis acrochorda. J Proteomics. 2012;77: 280–297. doi: 10.1016/j.jprot.2012.09.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Gutiérrez J, Avila C, Camacho Z, Lomonte B. Ontogenetic changes in the venom of the snake Lachesis muta stenophrys (bushmaster) from Costa Rica. Toxicon. 1990;28: 419–426. doi: 10.1016/0041-0101(90)90080-q [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Kularatne SAM, Budagoda BDSS, Gawarammana IB, Kularatne WKS. Epidemiology, clinical profile and management issues of cobra (Naja naja) bites in Sri Lanka: first authenticated case series. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2009;103: 924–930. doi: 10.1016/j.trstmh.2009.04.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Boldrini-França J, Corrêa-Netto C, Silva MMS, Rodrigues RS, De La Torre P, Pérez A, et al. Snake venomics and antivenomics of Crotalus durissus subspecies from Brazil: Assessment of geographic variation and its implication on snakebite management. J Proteomics. 2010;73: 1758–1776. doi: 10.1016/j.jprot.2010.06.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Grego KF, Vieira SEM, Vidueiros JP, Serapicos E de O, Barbarini CC, Silveira GPM da, et al. Maintenance of venomous snakes in captivity for venom production at Butantan Institute from 1908 to the present: a scoping history. J Venom Anim Toxins Incl Trop Dis. 2021;27: e20200068. doi: 10.1590/1678-9199-JVATITD-2020-0068 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Laemmli UK. Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4. Nature. 1970;227: 680–685. doi: 10.1038/227680a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Gay C, Sanz L, Calvete JJ, Pla D. Snake venomics and antivenomics of Bothrops diporus, a medically important pitviper in northeastern Argentina. Toxins (Basel). 2015;8: 9. doi: 10.3390/toxins8010009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Pedroso AP, Souza AP, Dornellas APS, Oyama LM, Nascimento CMO, Santos GMS, et al. Intrauterine Growth Restriction Programs the Hypothalamus of Adult Male Rats: Integrated Analysis of Proteomic and Metabolomic Data. J Proteome Res. 2017;16: 1515–1525. doi: 10.1021/acs.jproteome.6b00923 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Abreu TF, Sumitomo BN, Nishiyama MY, Oliveira UC, Souza GHMF, Kitano ES, et al. Peptidomics of Acanthoscurria gomesiana spider venom reveals new toxins with potential antimicrobial activity. J Proteomics. 2017;151: 232–242. doi: 10.1016/j.jprot.2016.07.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Vachova L, Moravcova J. Two microassays for determination of a wide range of proteolytic activities using azocoll as substrate. Biochem Mol Biol Int. 1993;30: 311–318. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Holzer M, Mackessy SP. An aqueous endpoint assay of snake venom phospholipase A2. Toxicon. 1996;34: 1149–1155. doi: 10.1016/0041-0101(96)00057-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Kishimoto M, Takahashi T. A spectrophotometric microplate assay for L-amino acid oxidase. Anal Biochem. 2001;298: 136–139. doi: 10.1006/abio.2001.5381 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Theakston RDG, Reid HA. Development of simple standard assay procedures for the characterization of snake venoms. Bull World Health Organ. 1983;61: 949–956. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Nadur-Andrade N, Barbosa AM, Carlos FP, Lima CJ, Cogo JC, Zamuner SR. Effects of photobiostimulation on edema and hemorrhage induced by Bothrops moojeni venom. Lasers Med Sci. 2012;27: 65–70. doi: 10.1007/s10103-011-0914-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Gutiérrez J, Gené JA, Rojas G, Cerdas L. Neutralization of proteolytic and hemorrhagic activities of Costa Rican snake venoms by a polyvalent antivenom. Toxicon. 1985;23: 887–893. doi: 10.1016/0041-0101(85)90380-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Finney DJ. Probit Analysis. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1971. [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Harlow E, Lane D. Antibodies: A laboratory manual. 1st ed. Cold Spring Harbor, New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 1988. Available: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=0p29pFaLwR8C&printsec=frontcover&hl=pt-BR&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false [Google Scholar]
  • 75.McCleary RJR, Sridharan S, Dunstan NL, Mirtschin PJ, Kini RM. Proteomic comparisons of venoms of long-term captive and recently wild-caught Eastern brown snakes (Pseudonaja textilis) indicate venom does not change due to captivity. J Proteomics. 2016;144: 51–62. doi: 10.1016/j.jprot.2016.05.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Fox JW. A brief review of the scientific history of several lesser-known snake venom proteins: L-amino acid oxidases, hyaluronidases and phosphodiesterases. Toxicon. 2013. pp. 75–82. doi: 10.1016/j.toxicon.2012.09.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Markland FS, Swenson S. Snake venom metalloproteinases. Toxicon. 2013;62: 3–18. doi: 10.1016/j.toxicon.2012.09.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Yamazaki Y, Hyodo F, Morita T. Wide distribution of cysteine-rich secretory proteins in snake venoms: Isolation and cloning of novel snake venom cysteine-rich secretory proteins. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2003;412: 133–141. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9861(03)00028-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Doley R, Zhou X, Manjunatha Kini R. Snake venom phospholipase A2 enzymes. In: Mackessy SP, editor. Handbook of Venoms and Toxins of Reptiles. New York: CRC Press; 2009. pp. 173–205. doi: 10.1201/9781420008661.ch8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.López-Lozano JL, de Sousa MV, Ricart CAO, Chávez-Olortegui C, Flores Sanchez E, Muniz EG, et al. Ontogenetic variation of metalloproteinases and plasma coagulant activity in venoms of wild Bothrops atrox specimens from Amazonian rain forest. Toxicon. 2002;40: 997–1006. doi: 10.1016/s0041-0101(02)00096-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Lomonte B, Calvete JJ. Strategies in “snake venomics” aiming at an integrative view of compositional, functional, and immunological characteristics of venoms. J Venom Anim Toxins Incl Trop Dis. 2017;23: 26. doi: 10.1186/s40409-017-0117-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Fox JW, Serrano SMT. Exploring snake venom proteomes: Multifaceted analyses for complex toxin mixtures. Proteomics. 2008. pp. 909–920. doi: 10.1002/pmic.200700777 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Alape-Girón A, Sanz L, Escolano J, Flores-Díaz M, Madrigal M, Sasa M, et al. Snake venomics of the lancehead pitviper Bothrops asper. Geographic, individual, and ontogenetic variations. J Proteome Res. 2008;7: 3556–3571. doi: 10.1021/pr800332p [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Amazonas DR, Portes-Junior JA, Nishiyama MY Jr, Nicolau CA, Chalkidis HM, Mourão RHV, et al. Molecular mechanisms underlying intraspecific variation in snake venom. J Proteomics. 2018;181: 60–72. doi: 10.1016/j.jprot.2018.03.032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Wiens JJ, Hutter CR, Mulcahy DG, Noonan BP, Townsend TM, Sites JW, et al. Resolving the phylogeny of lizards and snakes (Squamata) with extensive sampling of genes and species. Biol Lett. 2012;8: 1043–1046. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2012.0703 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Aguiar W da S, Galizio N da C, Serino-Silva C, Sant’Anna SS, Grego KF, Tashima AK, et al. Comparative compositional and functional analyses of Bothrops moojeni specimens reveal several individual variations. PLoS One. 2019;14: e0222206. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222206 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Mackessy SP. Venom Ontogeny in the Pacific Rattlesnakes Crotalus viridis helleri and C. v. oreganus. Copeia. 1988;1988: 92. doi: 10.2307/1445927 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Furtado MFD, Travaglia-Cardoso SR, Rocha MMT. Sexual dimorphism in venom of Bothrops jararaca (Serpentes: Viperidae). Toxicon. 2006;48: 401–410. doi: 10.1016/j.toxicon.2006.06.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Leloup P. Observations sur la reproduction de Bothrops moojeni Hoge en captivité. Acta Zool Pathol Antverp. 1975; 173–201. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Valdujo PH, Nogueira C, Martins M. Ecology of Bothrops neuwiedi pauloensis (Serpentes: Viperidae: Crotalinae) in the Brazilian cerrado. J Herpetol. 2002;36: 169–176. doi: 10.1670/0022-1511(2002)036[0169:EOBNPS]2.0.CO;2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Shine R. Intersexual dietary divergence and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in snakes. Am Nat. 1991;138: 103–122. doi: 10.1086/285207 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Rodrigues CR, Molina DAM, Silva de Assis TC, Liberato C, Melo-Braga MN, Ferreyra CB, et al. Proteomic and toxinological characterization of Peruvian pitviper Bothrops brazili (“jergón shushupe”) venom. Toxicon. 2020;184: 19–27. doi: 10.1016/j.toxicon.2020.05.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Santos JI, Cintra-Francischinelli M, Borges RJ, Fernandes CAH, Pizzo P, Cintra ACO, et al. Structural, functional, and bioinformatics studies reveal a new snake venom homologue phospholipase A2 class. Proteins Struct Funct Bioinforma. 2011;79: 61–78. doi: 10.1002/prot.22858 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Lomonte B, Díaz C, Chaves F, Fernández J, Ruiz M, Salas M, et al. Comparative characterization of Viperidae snake venoms from Perú reveals two compositional patterns of phospholipase A2 expression. Toxicon X. 2020;7. doi: 10.1016/j.toxcx.2020.100044 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Vitorino KA, Alfonso JJ, Gómez AF, Santos APA, Antunes YR, Caldeira CA d. S, et al. Antimalarial activity of basic phospholipases A2 isolated from Paraguayan Bothrops diporus venom against Plasmodium falciparum. Toxicon X. 2020;8: 100056. doi: 10.1016/j.toxcx.2020.100056 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Dias GS, Kitano ES, Pagotto AH, Sant’Anna SS, Rocha MMT, Zelanis A, et al. Individual variability in the venom proteome of juvenile Bothrops jararaca specimens. J Proteome Res. 2013;12: 4585–4598. doi: 10.1021/pr4007393 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Calvete JJ, Sanz L, Pérez A, Borges A, Vargas AM, Lomonte B, et al. Snake population venomics and antivenomics of Bothrops atrox: Paedomorphism along its transamazonian dispersal and implications of geographic venom variability on snakebite management. J Proteomics. 2011;74: 510–527. doi: 10.1016/j.jprot.2011.01.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Núñez V, Cid P, Sanz L, De La Torre P, Angulo Y, Lomonte B, et al. Snake venomics and antivenomics of Bothrops atrox venoms from Colombia and the Amazon regions of Brazil, Perú and Ecuador suggest the occurrence of geographic variation of venom phenotype by a trend towards paedomorphism. J Proteomics. 2009;73: 57–78. doi: 10.1016/j.jprot.2009.07.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Gonçalves-Machado L, Pla D, Sanz L, Jorge RJB, Leitão-De-Araújo M, Alves MLM, et al. Combined venomics, venom gland transcriptomics, bioactivities, and antivenomics of two Bothrops jararaca populations from geographic isolated regions within the Brazilian Atlantic rainforest. J Proteomics. 2016;135: 73–89. doi: 10.1016/j.jprot.2015.04.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Aird SD, Watanabe Y, Villar-Briones A, Roy MC, Terada K, Mikheyev AS. Quantitative high-throughput profiling of snake venom gland transcriptomes and proteomes (Ovophis okinavensis and Protobothrops flavoviridis). BMC Genomics. 2013;14. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-14-790 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Tan CH, Tan KY, Fung SY, Tan NH. Venom-gland transcriptome and venom proteome of the Malaysian king cobra (Ophiophagus hannah). BMC Genomics. 2015;16. doi: 10.1186/s12864-015-1828-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Modahl CM, Frietze S, Mackessy SP. Transcriptome-facilitated proteomic characterization of rear-fanged snake venoms reveal abundant metalloproteinases with enhanced activity. J Proteomics. 2018;187: 223–234. doi: 10.1016/j.jprot.2018.08.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Margres MJ, McGivern JJ, Wray KP, Seavy M, Calvin K, Rokyta DR. Linking the transcriptome and proteome to characterize the venom of the eastern diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus). J Proteomics. 2014;96: 145–158. doi: 10.1016/j.jprot.2013.11.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Durban J, Pérez A, Sanz L, Gómez A, Bonilla F, Rodríguez S, et al. Integrated “omics” profiling indicates that miRNAs are modulators of the ontogenetic venom composition shift in the Central American rattlesnake, Crotalus simus simus. BMC Genomics. 2013;14. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-14-234 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Durban J, Sanz L, Trevisan-Silva D, Neri-Castro E, Alagón A, Calvete JJ. Integrated Venomics and Venom Gland Transcriptome Analysis of Juvenile and Adult Mexican Rattlesnakes Crotalus simus, C. tzabcan, and C. culminatus Revealed miRNA-modulated Ontogenetic Shifts. J Proteome Res. 2017;16: 3370–3390. doi: 10.1021/acs.jproteome.7b00414 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Israel Silman

26 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-35649

From birth to adulthood: An analysis of Bothrops moojeni snake venom at different life stages

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tanaka-Azevedo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

In your revised version please try to address as fully as possible the detailed and constructive comments of the two reviewers.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 04 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Israel Silman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Major comments

1. Venoms from various ontogenetic stages were collected from snakes belonging to distinct geographical regions. How can the authors be sure that the differences they see are because of ontogenetic shifts, and not because of differences in geographical locations (i.e., intraspecific / interpopulation variation)? Wouldn’t it make much more sense to compare snakes of different ontogenetic stages from the same locality?

2. Male and Female venoms at different stages are represented by unequal sample sizes. Could the effect of unequal pooling influence the overall functional differences?

3. Authors should describe their relative quantification steps in detail. LFQ works best when the spectra are searched against species-specific transcriptomes or when working with model organisms. Performing searches against the Uniprot database, that too by restricting it to a specific clade, is likely to produce erroneous results.

4. The RAW mass spec data should be made available to the readers. Authors should consider depositing this to public repositories, such as the ProteomeXchange

Minor comments

1. Protein concentrations of different samples should be presented in table 1.

2. Line 423 could be Neonate and/or Juvenile snake as haemorrhagic activity was not tested for juveniles in this study.

3. “B. moojeni snake venoms were milked at the Laboratory of Herpetology of Instituto Butantan, according to the laboratory protocol” The authors should clarify what lab protocol they are referring to here.

4. Table 1 is very confusing. It might make it clear to separate the number of individuals from the SVN data.

5. In the materials and methods, the authors are advised to provide catalogue numbers of the chemicals that they have used, which will make it easier for the readers to reproduce these results.

Grammatical errors

The manuscript has many grammatical errors. I have only listed a few below.

1. Line 31: “in specific groups”

2. Suggest rewriting this awkward sentence: “has been studied for many years, as well as individual variation”. Moreover, I fail to understand this point as the individual venom variation is driven by the other reasons they mention in this sentence.

3. “their respective offspring of nine species of Bothrops”

4. “in regards of clinical outcome”

5. “have an impact in snakebite treatment”

6. “until the analyses Table 1 shows the groups, ages, number of”

7. “According to previous works [20,22,63–67], protein families were assigned.”

Reviewer #2: The experimental methodology (assays, LC-MS/MS, SDS-PAGE, etc.) evaluating the venoms of Bothrops moojeni from birth to adulthood is robust, as is the discussion incorporating results from other publications. My major concern is that the pools of venom from different age groups were from snakes of different localities. Therefore, some of the variation trends could be due to geographic variation and not ontogeny. This manuscript might also be better suited in a journal with more specific readership, such as the journal Toxicon.

Minor suggestions for improvement:

Abstract

I feel an additional sentence should be added about the 3 years-old snake venoms, were they similar to juveniles or different from both juveniles and adults? This detail is missing from the abstract currently.

Introduction

The second paragraph is a little short. It would be important to mention what toxins specifically are in this venom and what are the activities of the major toxins (metalloproteinases, serine proteases, etc.).

Line 68: More detail should be added here, such as how was the venom different between the adult females and offspring (what components specifically)?

Material and methods

Any statistics that could also incorporate geographical variation?

Results

Figure 2. It would be nice to see the protein families labeled on the side of the gel. Also, arrows pointing out the differences are that are discussed.

Figure 3. Figure resolution needs to be improved. I cannot see the labels on the chromatograms, including the x- and y-axis, they should be larger and clearer. What does the asterisk signify? This should be noted in the legend.

Line 342: “greatest” concentration

Figure 5: None of these were statistically significant? If so, an asterisk should be added to the corresponding comparison.

Figure 7. Like the other gel, it would be nice to see the protein families labeled on the side of the gel near their size ranges.

Discussion

Line 427: A different word then “besides” should be used. Perhaps begin this sentence listing the authors of the publication?

The discussion is a bit long.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jun 10;16(6):e0253050. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253050.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


12 Mar 2021

Reviewer #1: Major comments

1. Venoms from various ontogenetic stages were collected from snakes belonging to distinct geographical regions. How can the authors be sure that the differences they see are because of ontogenetic shifts, and not because of differences in geographical locations (i.e., intraspecific / interpopulation variation)? Wouldn’t it make much more sense to compare snakes of different ontogenetic stages from the same locality?

We would like to thank the reviewer for this inquiry. We understand the concern and we are aware of this issue. Indeed, in an ideal situation, it would be much better to compare the venoms of snakes from the same locality. However, we did not dispose of such material. Furthermore, a previous work by our group (Aguiar et al. Comparative compositional and functional analyses of Bothrops moojeni specimens reveal several individual variations; PloS ONE 14(9): e0222206, 2019) compared individual venoms of 13 snakes from different localities but did not identified a relationship between activities and geographical location. We understand the limitations of working with pooled venoms, but it is what we had available.

2. Male and Female venoms at different stages are represented by unequal sample sizes. Could the effect of unequal pooling influence the overall functional differences?

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. This difference may have influenced the outcome of some results. However, we collected the venoms from the snakes we had available and we described this limitation in the Discussion (lines 588-600).

3. Authors should describe their relative quantification steps in detail. LFQ works best when the spectra are searched against species-specific transcriptomes or when working with model organisms. Performing searches against the Uniprot database, that too by restricting it to a specific clade, is likely to produce erroneous results.

Thank you for pointing this out. We add more details of the LFQ. We used the three most intense peptide ions to compare the relative abundances of the quantified proteins. We agree with the reviewer that LFQ would work best with species-specific databases. However, the aim of our quantitative approach was only to estimate and compare proteins at the protein family level.

4. The RAW mass spec data should be made available to the readers. Authors should consider depositing this to public repositories, such as the ProteomeXchange

The proteomics data have been deposited to the ProteomeXchange Consortium via the PRIDE partner repository with the dataset identifier PXD024447.

Submission details:

Project Name: From birth to adulthood: An analysis of Bothrops moojeni snake venom at different life stages

Project accession: PXD024447

Project DOI: Not applicable

Reviewer account details:

Username: reviewer_pxd024447@ebi.ac.uk

Password: KjgIbK2q

Minor comments

1. Protein concentrations of different samples should be presented in table 1.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We added this information to Table 1.

2. Line 423 could be Neonate and/or Juvenile snake as haemorrhagic activity was not tested for juveniles in this study.

Thank you for the suggestion. We replaced “juvenile or an adult” by “neonate, juvenile, or adult” (line 477).

3. “B. moojeni snake venoms were milked at the Laboratory of Herpetology of Instituto Butantan, according to the laboratory protocol” The authors should clarify what lab protocol they are referring to here.

We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. The article describing the Laboratory of Herpetology protocol was added (line 121).

4. Table 1 is very confusing. It might make it clear to separate the number of individuals from the SVN data.

Thank you for the suggestion. We separated number of individual from the average size of the snakes.

5. In the materials and methods, the authors are advised to provide catalogue numbers of the chemicals that they have used, which will make it easier for the readers to reproduce these results.

Thank you for pointing this out. We added this information in Materials and Methods.

Grammatical errors

The manuscript has many grammatical errors. I have only listed a few below.

1. Line 31: “in specific groups”

2. Suggest rewriting this awkward sentence: “has been studied for many years, as well as individual variation”. Moreover, I fail to understand this point as the individual venom variation is driven by the other reasons they mention in this sentence.

3. “their respective offspring of nine species of Bothrops”

4. “in regards of clinical outcome”

5. “have an impact in snakebite treatment”

6. “until the analyses Table 1 shows the groups, ages, number of”

7. “According to previous works [20,22,63–67], protein families were assigned.”

We would like to thank the reviewer for all these suggestions. We revised the manuscript and corrected the mistakes.

Reviewer #2:

The experimental methodology (assays, LC-MS/MS, SDS-PAGE, etc.) evaluating the venoms of Bothrops moojeni from birth to adulthood is robust, as is the discussion incorporating results from other publications. My major concern is that the pools of venom from different age groups were from snakes of different localities. Therefore, some of the variation trends could be due to geographic variation and not ontogeny. This manuscript might also be better suited in a journal with more specific readership, such as the journal Toxicon.

We would like to thank the reviewer for this inquiry. We understand the concern and we are aware of this issue. Indeed, in an ideal situation, it would be much better to compare the venoms of snakes from the same locality. However, we did not dispose of such material. Furthermore, a previous work by our group (Aguiar et al. Comparative compositional and functional analyses of Bothrops moojeni specimens reveal several individual variations; PloS ONE 14(9): e0222206, 2019) compared individually the venoms of 13 snakes from different localities but did not identified a relationship between activities and geographical location. We understand the limitations of working with pooled venoms, but it is what we had available.

Minor suggestions for improvement:

Abstract

I feel an additional sentence should be added about the 3 years-old snake venoms, were they similar to juveniles or different from both juveniles and adults? This detail is missing from the abstract currently.

Thank you for the suggestion. We included a sentence about the 3 years-old snake venoms (lines 32-33).

Introduction

The second paragraph is a little short. It would be important to mention what toxins specifically are in this venom and what are the activities of the major toxins (metalloproteinases, serine proteases, etc.).

We would like to thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We included this information in the Introduction (lines 55-66).

Line 68: More detail should be added here, such as how was the venom different between the adult females and offspring (what components specifically)?

Thank you for the suggestion. We rewrote this part to include this information (lines 90-94).

Material and methods

Any statistics that could also incorporate geographical variation?

We appreciate the suggestion. However, due to sample shortage (especially of younger snakes), the analyses were carried out using pooled venoms, so we do not have specific data of each individual activity or composition. Therefore, we agree with the reviewer that this information could improve our work, but it is not possible to add it.

Results

Figure 2. It would be nice to see the protein families labeled on the side of the gel. Also, arrows pointing out the differences are that are discussed.

We would like to thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We inserted the protein families to the image.

Figure 3. Figure resolution needs to be improved. I cannot see the labels on the chromatograms, including the x- and y-axis, they should be larger and clearer. What does the asterisk signify? This should be noted in the legend.

Thank you for pointing this out. We separated this figure in two parts so it can be easier to see and fit into the page. We also included the information regarding the asterisk.

Line 342: “greatest” concentration

We corrected this mistake.

Figure 5: None of these were statistically significant? If so, an asterisk should be added to the corresponding comparison.

We thank the reviewer for this inquiry. Actually, many groups present statistical differences among each other. To avoid confusion and to keep the image cleaner, we decided to include this information in the Supplementary Table 2.

Figure 7. Like the other gel, it would be nice to see the protein families labeled on the side of the gel near their size ranges.

We would like to thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We inserted the protein families to the image.

Discussion

Line 427: A different word then “besides” should be used. Perhaps begin this sentence listing the authors of the publication?

Thank you for the suggestion. We modified the sentence from “Besides, the appearance of a band weighing ~23 kDa and the change of low molecular weight proteins were shown in B. atrox venom” to “López-Lozano and collaborators observed the appearing of a ~23 kDa band and the change of low molecular weight proteins in B. atrox venom” (lines 482-484).

The discussion is a bit long.

We thank the reviewer for the concern. However, we believe that the discussion contains the necessary information to corroborate the results and the importance of our work.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Israel Silman

1 Apr 2021

PONE-D-20-35649R1

From birth to adulthood: An analysis of the Brazilian lancehead (Bothrops moojeni) venom at different life stages

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tanaka-Azevedo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

As you will see from their reviews, both reviewers feel that certain important issues still require clarification. In your revised manusript please try to address these points as thoroughly as possible.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 16 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Israel Silman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Authors still need to address the following major comments

“but it is what we had available”

I don’ think this is an appropriate response. The authors should acknowledge this shortcoming very clearly in their manuscript.

“However, we collected the venoms from the snakes we had available and we described this limitation in the Discussion (lines 588-600).”

Those lines do not contain any information related to this. Authors need to very clearly explain the shortcomings of this study. Perhaps, in a different section. I am sympathetic to their situation and I do realize its not very easy to do these under ideal conditions. But there is no excuse for not highlighting the obvious shortcomings of the study clearly. This will help the readers judge the results and carve out future directions for research.

Protein quantification

This should also be perhaps highlighted in the drawbacks section. Pleas see reviews by Calvete et al. The fact that LFQ was performed can be ignored as long as this is clearly stated as one of the drawbacks. However, restricting searches against Bothrops is just technically wrong. Please check how many Bothrops sequences are there on Uniprot compared to overall number of sequences. Only the reviewed Bothrops sequences are included on Uniprot, which means that by restricting your searches to these handful of sequences, you are increasing your chances of missing out on a much larger number of hits. Uniprot itself is such a small database so there is no excuse for not searching against the complete database.

Reviewer #2: The revised manuscript has greatly improved. There is still the caveat of using pooled venom from snakes of different localities, but given at this time there is no way to fix this, the authors just need to make it very clear in the writing that this is a major limitation in this work and how the results could be impacted. The resolution of the figures still appears a little blurry, I would just make sure they are sharper for publication.

Some minor spelling/grammar issues are still present, I have pointed out a few of these to be corrected, but the manuscript should be edited again:

Abstract Line 39: “highlights the importance of comprehensive studies to better understand venom variability.”

Line 43: “health”

Line 54: inespecifically?

Line 60: “disrupts blood homeostasis” ? Or maybe a better term to clarify?

Line 65: How come only in some localities? Maybe some details to clarify, such as does venom variability for this species have noted variation in antivenom effectiveness? The way the sentence is currently written (and the first line of the abstract) it seems like that it is only a public health problem in some areas and in others it is harmless.

Line 94: “change” instead of modifies

Fig 3 and Fig 4 titles: change to “male B. moojeni” and “female B. moojeni”

Similar title change for Fig 5 and Fig 7. It is best to use B. moojeni throughout the manuscript to avoid nonspecific common names.

Fig 7. “for”? typo

Lines 584: I would clarify this sentence a bit more. The word “promoter” is associated with gene transcription, and miRNAs are post-transcriptional regulators. miRNAs do not necessarily regulate genes, but the translation of their mRNAs.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jun 10;16(6):e0253050. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253050.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


25 May 2021

Reviewer #1: Authors still need to address the following major comments

“but it is what we had available”

I don’ think this is an appropriate response. The authors should acknowledge this shortcoming very clearly in their manuscript.

“However, we collected the venoms from the snakes we had available and we described this limitation in the Discussion (lines 588-600).”

Those lines do not contain any information related to this. Authors need to very clearly explain the shortcomings of this study. Perhaps, in a different section. I am sympathetic to their situation and I do realize its not very easy to do these under ideal conditions. But there is no excuse for not highlighting the obvious shortcomings of the study clearly. This will help the readers judge the results and carve out future directions for research.

We thank the reviewer for this observation. We were not very clear about this shortcoming, so we tried to clarify this issue in the manuscript (lines 575-580).

Protein quantification

This should also be perhaps highlighted in the drawbacks section. Pleas see reviews by Calvete et al. The fact that LFQ was performed can be ignored as long as this is clearly stated as one of the drawbacks. However, restricting searches against Bothrops is just technically wrong. Please check how many Bothrops sequences are there on Uniprot compared to overall number of sequences. Only the reviewed Bothrops sequences are included on Uniprot, which means that by restricting your searches to these handful of sequences, you are increasing your chances of missing out on a much larger number of hits. Uniprot itself is such a small database so there is no excuse for not searching against the complete database.

Thank you for the comment. The reviewer is correct, we have less toxins restricting the database to the reviewed Bothrops sequences. However, as the objective of this database search was to classify toxins only at the family level (and not at the toxin level), we believe we have the main toxins represented in the reviewed database.

Reviewer #2: The revised manuscript has greatly improved. There is still the caveat of using pooled venom from snakes of different localities, but given at this time there is no way to fix this, the authors just need to make it very clear in the writing that this is a major limitation in this work and how the results could be impacted. The resolution of the figures still appears a little blurry, I would just make sure they are sharper for publication.

We thank the reviewer for this observation. We tried to clarify this issue regarding the samples in the manuscript (lines 575-580). As suggested before, we used PACE to optimize the images, but it seems some issues might not have been corrected. We reuploaded the images to PACE and hope this time this matter is resolved.

Some minor spelling/grammar issues are still present, I have pointed out a few of these to be corrected, but the manuscript should be edited again:

Abstract Line 39: “highlights the importance of comprehensive studies to better understand venom variability.”

Line 43: “health”

Line 54: inespecifically?

Line 60: “disrupts blood homeostasis” ? Or maybe a better term to clarify?

Line 65: How come only in some localities? Maybe some details to clarify, such as does venom variability for this species have noted variation in antivenom effectiveness? The way the sentence is currently written (and the first line of the abstract) it seems like that it is only a public health problem in some areas and in others it is harmless.

Line 94: “change” instead of modifies

Fig 3 and Fig 4 titles: change to “male B. moojeni” and “female B. moojeni”

Similar title change for Fig 5 and Fig 7. It is best to use B. moojeni throughout the manuscript to avoid nonspecific common names.

Fig 7. “for”? typo

Lines 584: I would clarify this sentence a bit more. The word “promoter” is associated with gene transcription, and miRNAs are post-transcriptional regulators. miRNAs do not necessarily regulate genes, but the translation of their mRNAs.

We would like to thank the reviewer for all the suggestions. We modified the manuscript accordingly.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Israel Silman

28 May 2021

From birth to adulthood: An analysis of the Brazilian lancehead (Bothrops moojeni) venom at different life stages

PONE-D-20-35649R2

Dear Dr. Tanaka-Azavedo,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Israel Silman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Israel Silman

2 Jun 2021

PONE-D-20-35649R2

From birth to adulthood: An analysis of the Brazilian lancehead (Bothrops moojeni) venom at different life stages

Dear Dr. Tanaka-Azevedo:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Israel Silman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Raw images. Original images of 1-DE and western blotting used in this work without any editing.

    (PDF)

    S1 Table. Individual information of the Brazilian lancehead used in this work.

    Identification: code used to identify each individual. Group: the group at where each individual was assigned to compose the pools. Sex: ♂—male; ♀—female. Weight (g): the weight of each specimen when the venom was milked. SVL−Total length (cm): snout-vent length and total length of the animals when the samples were collected. Localization: geographic origin of the individual or the parents.

    (XLSX)

    S2 Table. Statistical data of in vitro activities.

    Statistical difference between ages of the same sex (one-way ANOVA) and between both sexes of the same age (Student’s t-test). NS: no statistical difference.

    (XLSX)

    S3 Table. Proteins identified and quantified in the venoms of males’ and females’ Brazilian lancehead at different ages.

    Identification of the proteins in each of the twelve B. moojeni venoms through label-free quantification by high resolution LC-MS/MS considering the average intensity of the three most intense peptides of each identified protein.

    (XLSX)

    S4 Table. Proteins identified by LC-MS/MS and their peptide sequences.

    Complete data of the protein identification through label-free quantification by high resolution LC-MS/MS.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES