Next Article in Journal
Targeting NF-κB Signaling by Calebin A, a Compound of Turmeric, in Multicellular Tumor Microenvironment: Potential Role of Apoptosis Induction in CRC Cells
Next Article in Special Issue
Novel Bradykinin-Potentiating Peptides and Three-Finger Toxins from Viper Venom: Combined NGS Venom Gland Transcriptomics and Quantitative Venom Proteomics of the Azemiops feae Viper
Previous Article in Journal
A Novel Smad7 Genetic Variant Mapping on the Genomic Region Targeted by Mongersen Is Associated with Crohn’s Disease
Previous Article in Special Issue
Pharmacological Effects of a Novel Bradykinin-Related Peptide (RR-18) from the Skin Secretion of the Hejiang Frog (Ordorrana hejiangensis) on Smooth Muscle
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Biomedicines
Volume 8
Issue 8
10.3390/biomedicines8080235
biomedicines-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Curses or Cures: A Review of the Numerous Benefits Versus the Biosecurity Concerns of Conotoxin Research

by
Walden E. Bjørn-Yoshimoto
1,
Iris Bea L. Ramiro
1,
Mark Yandell
2,3,
J. Michael McIntosh
4,5,6,
Baldomero M. Olivera
4,
Lars Ellgaard
7 and
Helena Safavi-Hemami
1,4,8,*
1
Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, 2200 Copenhagen N, Denmark
2
Eccles Institute of Human Genetics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA
3
Utah Center for Genetic Discovery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA
4
School of Biological Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA
5
George E. Whalen Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Salt Lake City, UT 84148, USA
6
Department of Psychiatry, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA
7
Department of Biology, Linderstrøm-Lang Centre for Protein Science, University of Copenhagen, 2200 Copenhagen N, Denmark
8
Department of Biochemistry, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Biomedicines 2020, 8(8), 235; https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines8080235
Submission received: 30 June 2020 / Revised: 17 July 2020 / Accepted: 19 July 2020 / Published: 22 July 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Animal Venoms–Curse or Cure?)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Conotoxins form a diverse group of peptide toxins found in the venom of predatory marine cone snails. Decades of conotoxin research have provided numerous measurable scientific and societal benefits. These include their use as a drug, diagnostic agent, drug leads, and research tools in neuroscience, pharmacology, biochemistry, structural biology, and molecular evolution. Human envenomations by cone snails are rare but can be fatal. Death by envenomation is likely caused by a small set of toxins that induce muscle paralysis of the diaphragm, resulting in respiratory arrest. The potency of these toxins led to concerns regarding the potential development and use of conotoxins as biological weapons. To address this, various regulatory measures have been introduced that limit the use and access of conotoxins within the research community. Some of these regulations apply to all of the ≈200,000 conotoxins predicted to exist in nature of which less than 0.05% are estimated to have any significant toxicity in humans. In this review we provide an overview of the many benefits of conotoxin research, and contrast these to the perceived biosecurity concerns of conotoxins and research thereof.

1. Introduction

This article is divided into four sections. In the introductory section we provide an overview of the definition and classification of conotoxins, their chemical and pharmacological diversity, and a brief history of the methodologies used for conotoxin discovery. In the second section we highlight measurable scientific and societal benefits of conotoxin research with a view toward the future. The third section addresses biosecurity concerns and past and current regulations of conotoxins. In this section we discuss fatalities resulting from cone snail envenomations, toxicity data of selected conotoxins, the potential misuse of conotoxins as biological weapons, and their fictional use as murder weapons in the literature and popular media. In the concluding remarks, we assess the effectiveness and justification of regulations and suggest revisions of some current regulatory measures.

1.1. Conotoxin Definition, Classification, and Discovery

Venomous cone snails comprise a large and diverse lineage of marine gastropods within the family of Conidae (superfamily Conoidea) [1,2,3,4]. Based on molecular phylogenetic data, cone snails can be grouped into ≈57 distinct clades (or subgenera) [5], all of which use venom for prey capture (examples shown in Figure 1).
In the most basic sense, a conotoxin is a toxin identified from any of the ≈1000 living cone snails. The majority of conotoxins are gene-derived peptides that are synthesized at the ribosome and further processed in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) and Golgi apparatus of the secretory cells of the venom gland. Small molecules of non-peptidic nature have also been isolated from cone snail venom. These have traditionally not been defined as “conotoxins”, but instead named according to their characteristic chemical structures (for example [6,7]). Cone snail small molecules have not been subject to regulation and will therefore not be further discussed in this review.
The majority of conotoxins identified to date contain disulfide bonds that are formed between cysteine residues to confer structural stability and resistance against proteolytic degradation [8]. However, not all conotoxins contain cysteines and it has been suggested that conotoxins should be classified into those that are cysteine-rich (i.e., containing more than one disulfide bond) and those that are cysteine-poor (i.e., containing only one or no disulfide bonds). The term “conopeptide” was suggested to describe the latter group. However, this distinction has not received traction in the field and both terms conotoxin and conopeptide are now being used interchangeably [9].
Three biochemical and pharmacological features have been used to broadly classify conotoxins into distinct groups: their pharmacological target and activity (typically designated by a Greek letter), their cysteine framework (designated by Roman numerals) and their gene superfamily (designated by Latin letters). For example, conotoxins αA-GI and αM-MIIIJ both target the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) as represented by the Greek letter α but their genes and cysteine frameworks do not share any homology; one belongs to the A gene superfamily and has a type I cysteine framework while the other belongs to the M gene superfamily and has a type III cysteine framework. To date, more than 10 distinct pharmacological classes, 50 gene superfamilies, and 28 cysteine frameworks have been described [10], and more are likely to be discovered in the future.
The five best studied pharmacological classes of conotoxins all target ion channels expressed in the nervous and locomotor systems: α (inhibitors of nAChR), ω (inhibitors of voltage-gated calcium channels, VGCC), κ (inhibitors of voltage-gated potassium channels, VGKC), μ (inhibitors of voltage-gated sodium channels, VGSC), and δ (delayers of activation of voltage-gated sodium channels, VGSC) (Table 1). Not all pharmacological classes of conotoxins have a Greek letter designation. Instead, some have been named according to their sequence homology or similarity to other peptides (e.g., conopressins share sequence homology to vasopressin-oxytocin and coninsulins to insulin) or according to their phenotypic effect in mice (e.g., Conantokins, toxins that induce a sleep-like state in mice, were named after the Filipino word for sleep, “antok”) (Table 1).

1.2. Conotoxin Discovery

In the early days of conotoxin discovery, dating back to the 1960s, conotoxins were directly isolated from dissected venom, usually by bioassay-directed fractionation and sequencing (for example [11,25,26,27]). Thus, discovery was focused on the biological activity of a newly identified toxin, and as such, the toxin’s pharmacological activity and classification was usually determined. A common assay used to identify new toxins was by intracranial (IC; into the brain) or intraperitoneal (IP; into the abdominal cavity) injection of fractionated venom compounds into mice followed by observational recording [11,22,25,26,27,28,29,30]. Sequencing of active components required several rounds of purification from the complex venom mixture. As the conotoxins that elicited the most severe phenotypes when injected in mice could be more easily traced during purification, most conotoxins identified early on were those that were potently active in vertebrates and elicited severe effects such as seizures, shaking, paralysis, respiratory distress, or death [11,22,25,26,27,28,29,30]. Conotoxins that did not elicit a strong physiological response were not pursued or not reported (for example, see [31]). This may have resulted in the perception that most conotoxins have severe toxicity in vertebrates. Additionally, early studies predominantly focused on the venom of fish-hunting (piscovorous) cone snails. However, fish hunters constitute fewer than 20% of the total species diversity of cone snails [32]. The vast majority of cone snails prey on worms (vermivorous), and a small fraction of species prey on other mollusks (molluscivorous). Conotoxins isolated from piscovorous species are more likely to show toxicity in vertebrates than those isolated from vermivorous and molluscivorous species. Indeed, as conotoxin research expanded to the venoms of worm- and snail-hunting species and to more diverse sets of toxins from fish-hunters (e.g., α-conotoxins that target neuronal nAChRs, coninsulins, conopressins), the number of conotoxins with no or very low phenotypic activity in vertebrates steadily increased [10,33]. The vast majority of conotoxins isolated from venom to date have little to no toxicity in vertebrates.
The advent of genome sequencing in the 2000s dramatically changed how conotoxins could be identified; toxin sequences could now be readily deduced from genomic DNA or mRNA without the need to physically isolate toxins from venom. This led to a dramatic increase in the rate of conotoxin discovery; today more than 20,000 conotoxin sequences have been identified with thousands more anticipated to be sequenced in the coming years. The vast majority of these conotoxins have never been directly isolated from venom and their pharmacological activity remains unknown. For toxin sequences that share significant homology with toxins of known pharmacologies, activity can sometimes be predicted, but potencies and subtype selectivity profiles are difficult to predict. Activities of conotoxin sequences that do not share significant homology with known toxins are impossible to predict and, one may argue, these should not even be called conotoxins until a biological activity or presence in venom has been verified. To address this issue we previously proposed the usage of “conotoxin candidate” or “putative conotoxin” until future evidence can verify that a newly identified sequence indeed encodes a biologically active toxin (and is not merely predicted to do so) [34]. However, currently, there is no consensus in the field about how to best define newly identified conotoxin sequences.
While the difficulty of defining and classifying toxin sequences from large datasets has not been perceived as a limitation in the field of conotoxin research, the lack of a clear definition combined with the complexity of biological activities and toxicities has complicated the generation of well-reasoned regulations for research on, and access to, conotoxins (see Section 3.4).

2. Conotoxin “Cures”—Scientific and Societal Benefits of Conotoxin Research

2.1. The Conotoxin Drug Ziconotide (Tradename Prialt®)

ω-Conotoxin MVIIA (or ziconotide) is arguably the most famous conotoxin discovered to date. First isolated from the venom of the magician cone, Conus magus, at the University of Utah in 1982 [26], it was developed as a drug for the treatment of intractable pain by the biotech company Neurex Corp, approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2004, and marketed as Prialt® (the primary alternative to morphine) (Table 2). The history of the discovery of ω-conotoxin MVIIA has recently been reviewed in more detail elsewhere [35]. Here, we focus on the initial scientific goals that led to the discovery of ω-MVIIA and the societal benefits of this conotoxin today.
ω-MVIIA was discovered as part of an initiative into understanding why the venom of fish-hunting cone snails could be paralytic. In fish, ω-MVIIA was found to block neuromuscular transmission at the presynaptic terminus by inhibiting a specific voltage-gated calcium channel [36,37]. However, in the early 1980s, calcium channels had not been defined at a molecular level and it was uncertain how many different voltage-gated calcium channels were present in the vertebrate nervous system. The isolation of ω-MVIIA and a related peptide from Conus geographus, ω-GVIA, provided key pharmacological tools to define different types of voltage-gated calcium channels. Both peptides were selective for a calcium channel subtype that had not previously been recognized (initially known as the N-type calcium channel, and later as Cav2.2). While exploring the potential biomedical applications of ω-MVIIA, experiments conducted by Neurex Corp with a radiolabeled analog revealed specific binding to layers of the spinal cord dorsal horn previously established to be important for the perception of pain [38]. This finding paved the way for the subsequent development of ω-MVIIA as an analgesic [39].
The commercial drug Prialt® is an exact synthetic copy of ω-MVIIA. When approved by the FDA in 2004, Prialt was a welcome addition to the repertoire of anesthesiologists as an agent with a non-opioid mechanism. Unlike opioids, Prialt does not cause addiction or respiratory depression, but at high doses can lead to other severe, albeit not fatal, side effects, including psychomotor effects ranging from mild ataxia and auditory hallucinations (typically completely reversible with a small dose reduction) to more debilitating ataxia and psychosis. Furthermore, because Prialt acts by targeting Cav2.2 channels expressed in the central nervous system, it must be administered intrathecally using an implanted pump. This is an invasive and relatively costly procedure that has been a barrier to more widespread use. Thus, clinically, Prialt was often used a last resort. However, due to the lack of availability of effective, non-opioid therapeutics, recent guidelines now encourage the use of Prialt as a first-line agent in various pain conditions including neuropathic and nociceptive pain [40]. Furthermore, Prialt has been increasingly used in combination with an intrathecal opioid, exploiting the potentially synergistic effect of Prialt and opioids in the treatment of refractory chronic and cancer pain [41].

2.2. Conotoxin Drug Leads

In addition to the clinical development of ω-MVIIA several other conotoxins have been at various stages of development as drug leads for pain, epilepsy, heart disease, and diabetes (for recent reviews on these toxins see [35,42,43,44]). Table 2 provides an overview of these drug leads. Despite their promising therapeutic applications, none of these conotoxins has (yet) reached clinical approval. It is difficult to assess the underlying reasons for this because information on commercial developments of drug leads is typically not made accessible to the public when the development of a compound is discontinued (e.g., information on lack of efficacy in clinical trials, safety concerns, change in a company’s development program, demise of a company, intellectual property disputes, etc.). Where known, we list the current development status of conotoxin drug leads and the reason for why past development efforts were halted (Table 2).
Regardless of their drug development status, many of these toxins have become valuable pharmacological and biomedical tools for the study of signaling pathways important in health and disease.

2.3. Diagnostic Tool

One hallmark feature of conotoxins is their target specificity for closely related subtypes of receptors and ion channels. The selectivity profile of ω-conotoxin GVIA from the venom of Conus geographus, a homolog of the approved drug Prialt, led to its development as a diagnostic tool for Lambert–Eaton myasthenic syndrome (LEMS). LEMS is an autoimmune disorder, which results in muscle weakness, and is associated with lung cancer. LEMS is caused by the production of antibodies against presynaptic voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs), which results in the inhibition of acetylcholine release at the neuromuscular junction [45,46,47]. While it has historically been difficult to differentiate LEMS from symptomatically related disorders, in 1989 Sher and coworkers showed that antibodies against VGCCs produced in LEMS could immunoprecipitate 125I-ω-conotoxin GVIA-bound N-type VGCCs (Cav2.2), which are elevated in about half of LEMS patients [45,48]. This laid the basis for a diagnostic radio immunoprecipitation assay to differentiate LEMS from similar disorders, such as myasthenia gravis. By labeling solubilized cell membrane expressing Cav2.2 with 125I-labeled ω-conotoxin GVIA, and exposing this to LEMS patient serum, antibodies against Cav2.2 can bind the receptor-conotoxin complex. These are then precipitated, and the radioactivity can then be detected, indicating that the patient serum contains Cav2.2 antibodies. This diagnosis was later improved by the use of a different conotoxin that binds P/Q-type VGCCs (Cav2.1), ω-conotoxin MVIIC. Antibodies against Cav2.1 are elevated in about 85 % of LEMS patients [49,50]. Differentiating these disorders is critical for guiding clinical care [51]. The emergence of medically relevant diagnostic tools provides an important example for the societal benefits of conotoxin research.

2.4. Cosmetics

Similarly to botulinium toxin (Botox®), conotoxins that have myorelaxant properties can be developed as anti-wrinkle creams or injectable formulations. One such conotoxin is μ-CIIIC, originally isolated from the fish-hunting cone snail Conus consors as part of the European Commission-funded CONCO project (“CONCO: the cone snail genome project for health”). μ-CIIIC preferentially blocks the skeletal muscle sodium channel, Nav1.4, and the neuronal sodium channel Nav1.2 [52]. Due to the blocking of Nav1.4, it can act as a myorelaxant. μ-CIIIC was initially investigated as a drug for the treatment of pain and as a local anesthetic but is now sold as the active ingredient in a non-prescription cosmetic anti-wrinkle product under the name “XEP™-018”.

2.5. Research Tools

Conotoxins that target mammalian receptors are often selective for certain receptor subtypes, or subunit compositions. This feature renders conotoxins excellent tools for a plethora of studies in the areas of pharmacology, neuroscience, biochemistry, and structural biology. Table 3 lists a small number of these conotoxins, and examples of their use in basic biology and biomedical research. There is of course overlap with clinically developed conotoxins (Table 2), which are also often used as research tools. For instance, ω-conotoxin MVIIA (the drug Prialt), has been used as a tool compound in thousands of studies.
Another conotoxin that has been extensively used as a research tool in the scientific literature (> 3000 publications) is ω-conotoxin GVIA, a potent and selective blocker of the presynaptic N-type calcium channels, Cav2.2. The Cav2.2 channels play a crucial role in neurotransmitter release in response to action potentials in the kidneys, where they regulate the dilation of arteries, and in the heart, where they regulate cardiac excitability [53,54,55]. Hence, ω-conotoxin GVIA has been used extensively in numerous studies of various topics, including neurotransmission, pain, cardiology, epilepsy, renal function, and nuclear signaling (selected references in Table 3).
Another example is the α-conotoxin, ImI, from the vermivorous Conus imperialis (as well as the subsequently discovered α-conotoxin, ImII [56]). ImI and ImII are inhibitors of the neuronal α7 subtype of the nAChRs [57]. These toxins, like most other subtype- or subunit-selective conotoxins, have been used to elucidate the importance of receptor subunits in numerous biological- and pathophysiological studies [58,59,60]. However, they have also seen other more specialized uses. For instance, in a 2014 study Heghinian and co-workers used several different α-conotoxins to perform structurally guided mutations in the D. melanogaster α7 nAChR, allowing this receptor to display similar selectivity for various conotoxins as the mammalian counterpart. This, in turn, resulted in D. melanogaster cholinergic synapses that mimic the synaptic behavior of vertebrate synapses, improving the suitability of these mutant flies as a tool for in vivo drug discovery [61].
In a 2015 study, Lin and co-workers utilized the specificity of α-ImI for cellular targeting of the chemotherapy drug, paclitaxel [62]. The authors showed that linking paclitaxel-containing micelles to α-ImI significantly decreased the mass of tumors in mice when compared to either unlinked paclitaxel-filled micelles or free paclitaxel. In addition, they observed a lower systemic toxicity of the α-ImI-linked micelles.
In addition, several conotoxins have served as tools in structural biology to elucidate specific receptor binding sites or mechanisms of receptor activation. For instance, the X-ray crystal structure of the conotoxin con-ikot-ikot from Conus striatus [63] in complex with the GluR2 AMPA receptor subunit revealed the molecular mechanism underlying receptor activation [64]. Another example is the conotoxin Con-Insulin G1 from Conus geographus that revealed a minimum binding motif of insulin at the human insulin receptor [65].
Conotoxins undergo post-translational processing (folding and modification) in the ER and Golgi prior to packaging and secretion into the lumen of the venom gland. Due to their small size, chemical diversity, and high degree of post-translational modifications, conotoxins are ideal candidates to study general principles of peptide folding, modification, and secretion. Several conotoxins have been repeatedly used as model substrates for studies into enzyme-assisted peptide biosynthesis and folding, such as α-GI [66,67], μ-SmIIIA [68,69], and conantokin-G [70,71].
Lastly, conotoxins are among the most rapidly evolving gene products known in nature and have served as tools in a diverse range of studies on the effects of feeding ecology, prey taxa, dietary breadth, age and geographical heterogeneity on the evolution of venom genes [72,73,74,75,76], and studies on the role of gene duplication and positive selection on venom gene expression and diversification [77,78,79].

2.6. Conotoxin Research—A View toward the Future

Recent advances in throughput and sensitivity of next-generation DNA and peptide sequencing have resulted in a massive increase in the rate of conotoxin discovery (for example [34,113]). This is unlikely to decrease any time soon given that the cost of sequencing continues to fall. In combination with the generation of easier, less computationally heavy bioinformatic tools for data analysis, conotoxin discovery can now be done without the need of expensive or highly specialized equipment. The increasing rate of conotoxin discovery is being met with advances in methodologies for conotoxin production (for example [114,115,116]), high-content target screening and identification (for example [117,118,119]), and with a newly sparked interest in peptide-based drug development by the pharma industry [120]. We anticipate that this combination will lead to the development and design of many more conotoxin-based biomedical tools and pharmacological agents in the future.

3. Conotoxin “Curses”—Biosecurity Concerns

3.1. Cone Snail Envenomations and Human Fatalities

From the very first report of a human fatality from a cone snail sting ≈350 years ago, through to 2017, 141 cases of human envenomations have been recorded, of which 36 were fatal [121]. No human fatalities have been reported for the past 20 years. Most, if not all, of the 36 human fatalities caused by cone snail stings have been attributed to a single species, Conus geographus [121]. All of these were accidental, and there have been no reports of the use of cone snail venom as a weapon for murder.
In humans, symptoms from cone snail envenomations vary depending on several factors, including cone snail species. Often, pain or numbness is reported, but symptoms can include edema, vision impairment, fatigue and faintness, dyspnea, loss of reflexes, and nausea. Some victims have noticed a burning sensation at the site of the sting, while others have reported that the sting itself initially went unnoticed. Subsequently, reports of faintness, palpebral ptosis, dysphagia, as well as vision and speech impairment are common in more severe cases, though in some cases no obvious symptoms have been reported prior to the onset of muscle paralysis, which in the worst case can lead to death due to respiratory or cardiac arrest within a few hours [122,123,124]. No effective antivenom exists against cone snail venom.
While the venom of a small subset of the ≈800 species of cone snails is toxic to humans, the number of human envenomations by these animals pales in comparison to those reported for other venomous animals. Snake bites undoubtedly comprise the largest contribution of serious human envenomations by any group of animals. While exact data can be difficult to obtain, the World Health Organization estimates that ≈2.7 million people are envenomated by snakes every year, resulting in 81,000–138,000 deaths per year, and 400,000 permanent disabilities, including amputations [125]. The large number of deaths from snake bites result, in part, from a much larger rate of human–snake encounters. Nevertheless, it is clear that snake envenomations present a significantly larger concern to human health and life, compared to cone snails.
Another large contributor to human envenomations are scorpions, with an estimated 1.2 million global envenomations, and more than 3250 deaths each year [126]. One of the most venomous stings, the eastern red scorpion Hottentotta tamulus, has an estimated fatality rate of ≈30% when untreated. Similarly to cone snails, no effective antivenom exists for H. tamulus venom, though treatment with the anti-hypertension drug prazosin can lower this fatality rate to 2–4% [127,128].
As with cone snails, other venomous animals have also been an important source of biological, and biomedical research, research tools, as well as drugs and drug leads. Snake venom has provided several clinically important drugs, including blood pressure medication, coagulants, and anticoagulants [129,130,131]. Numerous scorpion venom components are likewise being investigated for biomedical uses, including novel peptide antimicrobial drugs [132].

3.2. Fictional Use of Conotoxins as Bioweapons

As envenomation by some species can be deadly, cone snails and their toxins have gained notoriety, both in national biodefense considerations (see Section 3.4), as well as in fiction. Some of these have recently been reviewed elsewhere [121,133].
For instance, in the Michael Crichton novel “The Lost World” (the sequel to “Jurassic Park”), as well as in the movie and video game adaptations of the novel, the “Lindstradt air gun”, a gun shooting a dart containing “enhanced venom” from the cone snail Conus purpurascens is used to kill or paralyze dinosaurs. In the movie, Conus purpurascens venom is described as the most powerful neurotoxin in the world that acts within 1/2000th of a second, which is stated to be faster than the velocity of nerve conduction.
In a 1972 episode of the television show Hawaii five-0 (season 4, episode 20: “Cloth of Gold”), a Conus textile, also called the “cloth of gold”, is intended to be used as a murder weapon. Instead it ends up being used as a tool for suicide by the main antagonist who presses it against his throat and is stung.
The Danish/Swedish television show, “Broen” (“The Bridge”, season 4, episode 5), featured the venom of Conus geographus (although an image of Conus textile was shown) as a weapon for murder. The toxin used was allegedly manufactured in a conotoxin production facility in Hamburg, Germany.
Another example is an episode of the animated British children’s show “Octonauts” (season 3, episode 3) that featured a cone snail shooting poison-loaded harpoons at crew members after being lost inside an underwater vessel.
Conotoxins have also appeared in several written murder mysteries, such as in James Patterson’s 2018 thriller “Murder in Paradise” or the novel “Murder on the Mataniko Bridge” by Ann Kengalu.

3.3. Conotoxin Toxicity

Contrary to their appearance as powerful murder weapons in fiction, no real-life incident for the nefarious use of a cone snail, its venom or toxin components has ever been reported. In this section, we report on the toxicity of some conotoxins in mammals that inspired both their use as weapons in fiction, and the introduction of regulatory measures for scientists working with conotoxins.
Due to the way conotoxins were traditionally identified (i.e., by behavioral bioassays in mice, see Section 1.2), the toxins that are the most potent in mammals were typically among the first to be identified [11,26,27]. As discussed above, these include a toxin from C. geographus, α-conotoxin GI, a potent inhibitor of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors of the neuromuscular junction [134,135,136] (Table 4). α-conotoxin GI significantly contributes to the comparably high fatality rate of C. geographus envenomations where it is believed to induce muscle paralysis and, ultimately, respiratory arrest due to paralysis of the diaphragm [137]. This toxin was described more than 40 years ago, and yet, to our knowledge, no incidents have ever been reported of its misuse. On the contrary, α-conotoxin GI been a valuable research tool in neurosciences and biochemistry (Table 3). As with all cone snail species, the venom of C. geographus contains more than 100 different toxins, the majority of which are not considered harmful to humans. As with α-conotoxin GI, numerous other C. geographus toxins have been valuable as drug leads and biomedical tools as well as one diagnostic agent (see Section 2.2, Section 2.3 and Section 2.5).
Since conotoxins comprise a large and diverse class of compounds with many different biomolecular targets in various species, the mammalian toxicity of different conotoxins likewise covers a range of orders of magnitude. The median lethal dose (LD50) of α-conotoxin GI is 12 µg/kg when injected intraperitoneally (IP) in mice [11]. Indeed, several conotoxins in the α-conotoxin family that target muscle-type nicotinic acetylcholine receptors of the neuromuscular junction, are quite potent toxins in mammals. However, this group forms a very small subset of α-conotoxins (most target neuronal nAChR subtypes and have very little to no toxicity in mammals) and a minuscule percentage of all conotoxins. For the vast majority of other conotoxins, the toxicity in mammals is so low that no LD50 has ever been determined. This not only includes many toxins from worm- or snail hunting species that have little to no effect in vertebrates, but also numerous toxins from fish hunters. For instance, the venom of C. geographus contains a vasopressin-like toxin (conopressin-G) that elicits a grooming behavior in mice when injected intracerebrally [24], and insulin-like toxins (coninsulins), that are used by the snail to induce low blood sugar in fish prey but activate the mammalian insulin receptor at much lower potency than human insulin [138]. As stated above, even within the family of α-conotoxins, most toxins have very low to no toxicity in mammals. For instance, α-conotoxin GIC, also from C. geographus, targets neuronal nAChRs, does not block human neuromuscular nAChR subunit compositions in electrophysiological assays, nor do mice display any motor deficits or paralysis when injected with up to 5 nmol IP (corresponding to >250 µg/kg) [139].
While certain conotoxins are indeed toxic to humans, these toxins are significantly less potent than certain toxins produced in other animals (see Table 4). For instance, even the most lethal conotoxin is more than one order of magnitude less potent than both textilotoxin, a protein toxin from the eastern brown snake, Pseudonaja textilis, as well as ciguatoxins and maitotoxins, which are produced by various dinoflagellate species.
Furthermore, conotoxins appear to only be toxic when injected. While not every route of administration has been described, attempts have been made to improve the oral activity of conotoxin drug leads. An example is the α-conotoxin Vc1.1, where numerous modifications were tested in order to increase its oral bioactivity. The analog obtained with the highest oral bioactivity was still ≈1000 fold less potent when administered orally, than when injected [86,140].

3.4. Past and Current Regulations of Research on Conotoxins

Worldwide, various governing bodies are responsible for maintaining lists of regulated substances that are deemed biosecurity concerns. Items on these regulatory lists are subject to certain restrictions in their export and use, including in research. These lists contain various pathogens (e.g., Ebola virus, sheeppox virus) but also include toxins of biological origin. Most of these toxins have a well-defined chemical identity and biological activity, e.g., tetrodotoxin, botulinum toxin, or T2-mycotoxin. However, for conotoxins, this is not the case, and the term “conotoxin” or “conotoxins” is used without additional classification. For example, at the time of writing, the European Union (EU) includes “conotoxin” as a controlled substance [154] and Australian regulations cover “conotoxins” [155], both of which are virtually identical to how the United States regulated conotoxins prior to a 2012 revision. Thus, these two lists not only include conotoxins that have toxicity in vertebrates, but also those that elicit little or no physiological response in vertebrates and those with unknown biological activity. Given the chemical, structural, and biological diversity of conotoxins (see Section 1.1) regulating conotoxins as a single entity is clearly problematic. It is worth noting that to the best of our knowledge, no regulatory agency has ever had “snake toxins” or “scorpion toxins” as a regulated substance in the same manner as “conotoxins”. Neither does any country, to the best of our knowledge, regulate any of the specific components of any animal venoms, even ones that are more potent toxins in mammals than any conotoxin (see Table 4 for examples). Without a clear definition of the term “conotoxin”, as currently the case in many countries, interpretation is often left to the individual evaluating a given case, who is typically not an expert in the field.
To address this, some countries have more narrowly defined their classification of regulated conotoxins. For example, until 2012, the select agent list in the United States included “conotoxins”. This has since been revised to only include the paralytic α-conotoxins containing a very distinct sequence pattern, which corresponds to the sequence motifs found in the conotoxins that block muscle-type nicotinic acetylcholine receptors ([156]; “Short, paralytic alpha conotoxins containing the following amino acid sequence X1CCX2PACGX3X4X5X6CX7 where C = Cysteine residues with the 1st and 3rd Cysteine, and the 2nd and 4th Cysteine forming specific disulfide bridges; X1 = any amino acid(s) or Des-X; X2 = Asparagine or Histidine; P = Proline; A = Alanine; G = Glycine; X3 = Arginine or Lysine; X4 = Asparagine, Histidine, Lysine, Arginine, Tyrosine, Phenylalanine or Tryptophan; X5 = Tyrosine, Phenylalanine, or Tryptophan; X6 = Serine, Threonine, Glutamate, Aspartate, Glutamine, or Asparagine; X7 = Any amino acid(s); “Des X” = “an amino acid does not have to be present at this position.”). This narrower definition was also recently adopted by the Danish Center of Biosecurity and Biopreparedness (CBB) [157].
In 1985, the “Australia Group” was formed as an informal arrangement aimed at allowing members to harmonizing export, while minimizing the risk of this export aiding in chemical and biological weapon proliferation [158]. At the time of writing, the Australia Group has 44 members, including Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Argentina, Mexico, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and members of the European Union. Conotoxins are listed as biological agents, thus requiring members to control their international trade with the exception of medical or clinical formulations of conotoxins designated for human use.
The exact implementation of the regulations, in regard to research activities utilizing conotoxins, varies in different countries, but typically researchers are allowed to work with threshold amounts (often 100 mg is used), while being subject to lower regulatory requirements for handling, training, and/or reporting to authorities, whereas higher amounts of conotoxin are typically subject to more stringent restrictions and requirements. Where regulatory agencies have differentiated various conotoxins, this typically applies to a very select group of paralytic and potent toxins in mammals, such as the paralytic α-conotoxins. If differences between conotoxins are not specified, these limitations are typically interpreted to mean that even small amounts of any conotoxin are regulated in this manner, regardless of the toxicity of the specific conotoxin in question.
It is interesting to note that the crude cone snail venom, even from the most venomous species, has never been regulated. Only “conotoxin” components of the venom are regulated, even in cases where the term “conotoxins” is used to encompass every single component of the venom. This is despite the fact that the venom components elicit a synergistic effect, in fact being more potent as crude venom than as the individual components that are regulated [15,159].

3.5. Potential Use of Conotoxins as Bioweapons

Although, to our knowledge, there has not been a single incident on the use of cone snail venom or conotoxins outside of legitimate research and drug development programs, the regulatory measures described in the previous Section 3.4 reflect concerns about the potential misuse of conotoxins in bioterrorism.
One such concern is that conotoxins could potentially be aerosolized and thus more easily spread and inhaled by potential victims. The bioavailibilities upon pulmonary inhalation greatly varies between different compounds [160,161,162,163] making it difficult to predict whether any conotoxin would retain toxicity in an aerosolized form. If indeed they did, this would provide an alternate route of administration. However, the toxin would still need to be formulated for aerosolization purposes, and formulating peptides for aerosol delivery is not trivial. Producing the appropriate particle sizes, as well as the being able to retain peptide integrity during the process remains challenging [164].
Another potential concern is that some conotoxins could be injected thereby acting as a murder weapon. However, this also applies to many other biological and non-biological compounds that are lethal when directly injected into the human body, many of which have never been regulated.
The small amount needed for some conotoxins could potentially render them difficult to detect, complicating the determination of the cause of death. The pharmacokinetics of conotoxins in humans are not well described. It has been reported that for α-conotoxin GI, no breakdown was detected after a 3-h incubation in human plasma [165], and for α-conotoxin MII, more than 60% remained after 24 h of incubation in human plasma [166], though the in vivo clearance of these and other conotoxins could be much faster due to metabolism outside of systemic circulation [167]. While modern forensic testing methods are able to detect peptide concentration in plasma of ≈0.1 parts-per-billion [168], it is possible that a conotoxin could metabolize beyond this limit before an autopsy would be performed. A further and likely more pressing concern could be that no antivenom exists. This means that even if a victim could receive care in time, life-saving medical interventions are limited to supportive care (for example, for α-conotoxin GI mouth to mouth or mechanical ventilation can be performed until the paralysis wears off). This, however, is also true for numerous compounds that are not regulated, several of them being more potent than any conotoxin (see Table 4).
Another avenue for potentially using conotoxins as bioweapons could be their incorporation into the genomes of pathogenic viruses and bacteria genomes in order to enhance their deadliness. According to an interview with a former scientist in the United States senate a program of such nature was allegedly carried out in the Soviet Union. This program allegedly led to the generation of a smallpox virus that carried conotoxin sequences before it was ultimately terminated [169]. As stated in the interview these conotoxins contained two specific cystine bridges and, thus, were likely α-conotoxins. While this report could have led to the strict regulations regarding conotoxin research, it should be noted that many other toxins could be used in such a manner and research on dangerous pathogens, including the smallpox virus, is already strictly regulated.
In 2017, El-Aziz and co-workers published a method for in vivo neutralization of toxic peptides using DNA oligonucleotides [170]. As a proof of concept, they used α-conotoxin PrXA from Conus parius, a fast acting and potent toxin targeting the nAChRs of the skeletal muscles. They showed that the oligonucleotides (“adaptamers”) could efficiently counteract the binding to receptors, inhibition of diaphragm contraction, and death induced by this conotoxin in mice. While not yet available for clinical use, the World Health Organization has classified envenomations as category A (the highest priority concern available), mostly due to snake bites. Since this approach could also be useful for toxins from other animals, including snakes, these promising efforts could lead to the generation of effective medical treatment options in the future.

4. Concluding Remarks

4.1. Concluding Remarks on Conotoxin “Cures”

Since the dawn of conotoxin research ≈60 years ago [6,171,172], the number of new conotoxins being identified has exploded. Through the decades, their increasing chemical and pharmacological diversity became apparent and, to date, >5000 research articles have been published in this field of research. Furthermore, conotoxins have been used as tools in thousands of additional research studies, many of which could only be conducted due to the unique properties of certain conotoxins. From a basic understanding of receptor subunit compositions, receptor structures, and peptide folding and expression, to more physiological studies on such diverse topics as epilepsy, inflammation, cancer, pain, cardiology, renal function, and addiction (see Table 3), and even clinical studies and an FDA approved drug (see Table 2), these peptides have already provided immense benefits to basic and applied research and society. With the advances in genomics sequencing, the number of available conotoxin sequences is rapidly increasing. Every new sequence is a new opportunity for furthering research into novel biology, as well as clinical treatments. As long as researchers can use these valuable tools in their research, novel discoveries will continue for many more decades to come.

4.2. Concluding Remarks on Conotoxin “Curses”

A few select conotoxins are indeed toxic to humans, but the vast majority are not. It seems self-evident that the harmless conotoxins should not be subject to regulations. However, here we argue that even for the more potent toxins, regulations on researchers are unlikely to prevent their use in bioterrorism, but instead will impede research that, as outlined above, provides many impactful benefits. As we have explained, even the most potent conotoxins appear to be poor candidates for the development of biological weapons (see Section 3.5). Moreover, knowledge of toxin sequences and their synthesis has been publicly available for decades, and the reagents and equipment needed are, to the best of our knowledge, not regulated. In fact, some of these toxins can be readily purchased from commercial providers. However, as discussed, the actual formulation of conotoxins for an aerosol delivery is likely to prove challenging, and it is unclear whether conotoxins would even be bioavailable in such a formulation. With cheap, easy alternatives readily available and proven effective (e.g., phosgene gas), there would seem to be little incentive to pursue this. Consider too, that if successful, recent efforts in developing oligonucleotide-based blockers of peptide toxins may provide broadly applicable treatments. This would further lower the potential of conotoxins as bioweapons. Likewise, concerns about using conotoxins as injectable weapons, while possible, seem largely irrelevant outside of fiction, considering the plethora of other toxins or toxic substances that could easily replace conotoxins in such a scenario.

4.3. Suggestions

First, the lack of a clear definition of “conotoxin” or “conotoxins” in legislative work is highly problematic. At the very least, a clear distinction should be made between different conotoxins. If, after a careful consideration of the available literature, any regulatory authority still sees a reason to keep certain conotoxins on the list of potential bioweapon threats, it is essential that these are clearly differentiated from other conotoxins.
Second, it is our opinion that listing even the most potent toxins will have little effect in regard to their potential use in bioterrorism. As discussed, toxin sequences and information on synthesis and recombinant production are publicly available and have been for decades. Limiting the use of these toxins in research is unlikely to reduce a potential bioterror threat. Instead, it is a barrier to research in this important field.

Funding

B.M.O. and M.Y. acknowledges funding from the US National Institutes of Health (GM122869), and JMM from GM136430, GM103801 and US Department of Defense W81XWH170413 (to BMO and JMM). L.E. acknowledges funding from the Independent Research Fund Denmark | Technology and Production Sciences (7017-00288), and H.S.-H. acknowledges funding from the Velux Foundation (Villum grant 19063).

Conflicts of Interest

J.M.M., B.M.O. and H.S.-H. hold patents on some of the conotoxins listed in this review.

References

  1. Abdelkrim, J.; Aznar-Cormano, L.; Fedosov, A.E.; Kantor, Y.I.; Lozouet, P.; Phuong, M.A.; Zaharias, P.; Puillandre, N. Exon-Capture-Based Phylogeny and Diversification of the Venomous Gastropods (Neogastropoda, Conoidea). Mol. Biol. Evol. 2018, 35, 2355–2374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Puillandre, N.; Bouchet, P.; Duda, T.F., Jr.; Kauferstein, S.; Kohn, A.J.; Olivera, B.M.; Watkins, M.; Meyer, C. Molecular phylogeny and evolution of the cone snails (Gastropoda, Conoidea). Mol. Phylogenetics Evol. 2014, 78, 290–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Fleming, C.J. 1822, taxID: 14107. MolluscaBase. Available online: http://molluscabase.org/ (accessed on 14 July 2020).
  4. World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS), tax ID 14107. Available online: https://www.marinespecies.org (accessed on 14 July 2020).
  5. Puillandre, N.; Duda, T.F.; Meyer, C.; Olivera, B.M.; Bouchet, P. One, four or 100 genera? A new classification of the cone snails. J. Molluscan Stud. 2014, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Kohn, A.J.; Saunders, P.R.; Wiener, S. Preliminary studies on the venom of the marine snail. Conus. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1960, 90, 706–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Neves, J.L.; Lin, Z.; Imperial, J.S.; Antunes, A.; Vasconcelos, V.; Olivera, B.M.; Schmidt, E.W. Small Molecules in the Cone Snail Arsenal. Org. Lett. 2015, 17, 4933–4935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Safavi-Hemami, H.; Foged, M.M.; Ellgaard, L. Evolutionary Adaptations to Cysteine-Rich Peptide Folding. In Oxidative Folding of Peptides and Proteins; Feige, M.J., Ed.; Royal Society of Chemistry: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  9. Puillandre, N.; Koua, D.; Favreau, P.; Olivera, B.M.; Stocklin, R. Molecular phylogeny, classification and evolution of conopeptides. J. Mol. Evol. 2012, 74, 297–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Olivera, B.M.; Safavi-Hemami, H.; Horvarth, M.P.; Teichert, R.W. Conopeptides, Marine Natural Products from Venoms: Biomedical Applications and Future Research Applications. In Marine Biomedicine: From Beach to Bedside; Baker, B.J., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015; ISBN 9780367575304. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cruz, L.J.; Gray, W.R.; Olivera, B.M. Purification and properties of a myotoxin from Conus geographus venom. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 1978, 190, 539–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fainzilber, M.; Nakamura, T.; Lodder, J.C.; Zlotkin, E.; Kits, K.S.; Burlingame, A.L. Gamma-Conotoxin-PnVIIA, a gamma-carboxyglutamate-containing peptide agonist of neuronal pacemaker cation currents. Biochemistry 1998, 37, 1470–1477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Shon, K.J.; Grilley, M.M.; Marsh, M.; Yoshikami, D.; Hall, A.R.; Kurz, B.; Gray, W.R.; Imperial, J.S.; Hillyard, D.R.; Olivera, B.M. Purification, Characterization, Synthesis, and Cloning of the Lockjaw Peptide from Conus purpurascens Venom. Biochemistry 1995, 34, 4913–4918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Jimenez, E.C.; Shetty, R.P.; Lirazan, M.; Rivier, J.; Walker, C.; Abogadie, F.C.; Yoshikami, D.; Cruz, L.J.; Olivera, B.M. Novel excitatory Conus peptides define a new conotoxin superfamily. J. Neurochem. 2003, 85, 610–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Terlau, H.; Shon, K.J.; Grilley, M.; Stocker, M.; Stuhmer, W.; Olivera, B.M. Strategy for rapid immobilization of prey by a fish-hunting marine snail. Nature 1996, 381, 148–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Cruz, L.J.; Gray, W.R.; Olivera, B.M.; Zeikus, R.D.; Kerr, L.; Yoshikami, D.; Moczydlowski, E. Conus geographus toxins that discriminate between neuronal and muscle sodium channels. J. Biol. Chem. 1985, 260, 9280–9288. [Google Scholar]
  17. Sharpe, I.A.; Gehrmann, J.; Loughnan, M.L.; Thomas, L.; Adams, D.A.; Atkins, A.; Palant, E.; Craik, D.J.; Adams, D.J.; Alewood, P.F.; et al. Two new classes of conopeptides inhibit the alpha 1-adrenoceptor and noradrenaline transporter. Nat. Neurosci. 2001, 4, 902–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. England, L.J.; Gulyas, J. Inactivation of a serotonin-gated ion channel by a polypeptide toxin from marine snails (vol 281, pg 575, 1998). Science 1998, 282, 417. [Google Scholar]
  19. Petrel, C.; Hocking, H.G.; Reynaud, M.; Upert, G.; Favreau, P.; Biass, D.; Paolini-Bertrand, M.; Peigneur, S.; Tytgat, J.; Gilles, N.; et al. Identification, structural and pharmacological characterization of τ-CnVA, a conopeptide that selectively interacts with somatostatin sst3 receptor. Biochem. Pharmacol. 2013, 85, 1663–1671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Olivera, B.M.; McIntosh, J.M.; Cruz, L.J.; Luque, F.A.; Gray, W.R. Purification and sequence of a presynaptic peptide toxin from Conus geographus venom. Biochemistry 1984, 23, 5087–5090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Jin, A.H.; Dekan, Z.; Smout, M.J.; Wilson, D.; Dutertre, S.; Vetter, I.; Lewis, R.J.; Loukas, A.; Daly, N.L.; Alewood, P.F. Conotoxin Φ-MiXXVIIA from the Superfamily G2 Employs a Novel Cysteine Framework that Mimics Granulin and Displays Anti-Apoptotic Activity. Angew. Chem. 2017, 56, 14973–14976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Olivera, B.M.; McIntosh, J.M.; Clark, C.; Middlemas, D.; Gray, W.R.; Cruz, L.J. A sleep-inducing peptide from Conus geographus venom. Toxicon 1985, 23, 277–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Safavi-Hemami, H.; Gajewiak, J.; Karanth, S.; Robinson, S.D.; Ueberheide, B.; Douglass, A.D.; Schlegel, A.; Imperial, J.S.; Watkins, M.; Bandyopadhyay, P.K.; et al. Specialized insulin is used for chemical warfare by fish-hunting cone snails. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 1743–1748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Cruz, L.J.; de Santos, V.; Zafaralla, G.C.; Ramilo, C.A.; Zeikus, R.; Gray, W.R.; Olivera, B.M. Invertebrate vasopressin/oxytocin homologs. Characterization of peptides from Conus geographus and Conus striatus venoms. J. Biol. Chem. 1987, 262, 15821–15824. [Google Scholar]
  25. Clark, C.; Olivera, B.M.; Cruz, L.J. A toxin from the venom of the marine snail Conus geographus which acts on the vertebrate central nervous system. Toxicon 1981, 19, 691–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. McIntosh, M.; Cruz, L.J.; Hunkapiller, M.W.; Gray, W.R.; Olivera, B.M. Isolation and structure of a peptide toxin from the marine snail Conus magus. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 1982, 218, 329–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gray, W.R.; Luque, A.; Olivera, B.M.; Barrett, J.; Cruz, L.J. Peptide toxins from Conus geographus venom. J. Biochem. 1981, 256, 4734–4740. [Google Scholar]
  28. Feldman, D.H.; Olivera, B.M.; Yoshikami, D. Omega Conus geographus toxin—A peptide that blocks calcium channels. FEBS Lett. 1987, 214, 295–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Craig, A.G.; Zafaralla, G.; Cruz, L.J.; Santos, A.D.; Hillyard, D.R.; Dykert, J.; Rivier, J.E.; Gray, W.R.; Imperial, J.; DelaCruz, R.G.; et al. An O-glycosylated neuroexcitatory Conus peptide. Biochemistry 1989, 37, 16019–16025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Cruz, L.J.; Kupryszewski, G.; LeCheminant, G.W.; Gray, W.R.; Olivera, B.M.; Rivier, J. Mu-conotoxin GIIIA, a peptide ligand for muscle sodium channels: Chemical synthesis, radiolabeling, and receptor characterization. Biochemistry 1989, 28, 3437–3442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Rybin, M.J.; O’Brien, H.; Ramiro, I.B.L.; Azam, L.; McIntosh, J.M.; Olivera, B.M.; Safavi-Hemami, H.; Yoshikami, D. αM-Conotoxin MIIIJ Blocks Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors at Neuromuscular Junctions of Frog and Fish. Toxins 2020, 12, 197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Olivera, B.M.; Seger, J.; Horvath, M.P.; Fedosov, A.E. Prey-Capture Strategies of Fish-Hunting Cone Snails: Behavior, Neurobiology and Evolution. Brain Behav. Evol. 2015, 86, 58–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Robinson, S.D.; Norton, R.S. Conotoxin gene superfamilies. Mar. Drugs 2014, 12, 6058–6101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Li, Q.; Watkins, M.; Robinson, S.D.; Safavi-Hemami, H.; Yandell, M. Discovery of Novel Conotoxin Candidates Using Machine Learning. Toxins 2018, 10, 503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Safavi-Hemami, H.; Brogan, S.E.; Olivera, B.M. Pain therapeutics from cone snail venoms: From Ziconotide to novel non-opioid pathways. J. Proteom. 2019, 190, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Kerr, L.M.; Yoshikami, D. A venom peptide with a novel presynaptic blocking action. Nature 1984, 308, 282–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. McCleskey, E.W.; Fox, A.P.; Feldman, D.H.; Cruz, L.J.; Olivera, B.M.; Tsien, R.W.; Yoshikami, D. Omega-conotoxin: Direct and persistent blockade of specific types of calcium channels in neurons but not muscle. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1987, 84, 4327–4331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Todd, A.J. Neuronal circuitry for pain processing in the dorsal horn. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2010, 11, 823–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Miljanich, G.P. Ziconotide: Neuronal calcium channel blocker for treating severe chronic pain. Curr. Med. Chem. 2004, 11, 3029–3040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Deer, T.R.; Pope, J.E.; Hayek, S.M.; Bux, A.; Buchser, E.; Eldabe, S.; De Andrés, J.A.; Erdek, M.; Patin, D.; Grider, J.S.; et al. The Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC): Recommendations on Intrathecal Drug Infusion Systems Best Practices and Guidelines. Neuromodulation J. Int. Neuromodulation Soc. 2017, 20, 96–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Webster, L.R. The Relationship Between the Mechanisms of Action and Safety Profiles of Intrathecal Morphine and Ziconotide: A Review of the Literature. Pain Med. 2015, 16, 1265–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Pennington, M.W.; Czerwinski, A.; Norton, R.S. Peptide therapeutics from venom: Current status and potential. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2018, 26, 2738–2758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. King, G.F. Venoms as a platform for human drugs: Translating toxins into therapeutics. Expert Opin. Biol. Ther. 2011, 11, 1469–1484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Robinson, S.D.; Safavi-Hemami, H. Venom peptides as pharmacological tools and therapeutics for diabetes. Neuropharmacology 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sher, E.; Gotti, C.; Canal, N.; Scoppetta, C.; Piccolo, G.; Evoli, A.; Clementi, F. Specificity of calcium channel autoantibodies in Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome. Lancet 1989, 2, 640–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lennon, V.A.; Kryzer, T.J.; Griesmann, G.E.; O’Suilleabhain, P.E.; Windebank, A.J.; Woppmann, A.; Miljanich, G.P.; Lambert, E.H. Calcium-channel antibodies in the Lambert-Eaton syndrome and other paraneoplastic syndromes. N. Engl. J. Med. 1995, 332, 1467–1474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Mareska, M.; Gutmann, L. Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome. Semin. Neurol. 2004, 24, 149–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Leys, K.; Lang, B.; Johnston, I.; Newsom-Davis, J. Calcium channel autoantibodies in the Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome. Ann. Neurol. 1991, 29, 307–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Motomura, M.; Johnston, I.; Lang, B.; Vincent, A.; Newsom-Davis, J. An improved diagnostic assay for Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 1995, 58, 85–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lang, B.; Waterman, S.; Pinto, A.; Jones, D.; Moss, F.; Boot, J.; Brust, P.; Williams, M.; Stauderman, K.; Harpold, M.; et al. The role of autoantibodies in Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1998, 841, 596–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Skeie, G.O.; Apostolski, S.; Evoli, A.; Gilhus, N.E.; Illa, I.; Harms, L.; Hilton-Jones, D.; Melms, A.; Verschuuren, J.; Horge, H.W. Guidelines for treatment of autoimmune neuromuscular transmission disorders. Eur. J. Neurol. 2010, 17, 893–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Favreau, P.; Benoit, E.; Hocking, H.G.; Carlier, L.; D’ hoedt, D.; Leipold, E.; Markgraf, R.; Schlumberger, S.; Córdova, M.A.; Gaertner, H.; et al. A novel µ-conopeptide, CnIIIC, exerts potent and preferential inhibition of NaV1.2/1.4 channels and blocks neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Br. J. Pharmacol. 2012, 166, 1654–1668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Westenbroek, R.E.; Hell, J.W.; Warner, C.; Dubel, S.J.; Snutch, T.P.; Catterall, W.A. Biochemical properties and subcellular distribution of an N-type calcium channel alpha 1 subunit. Neuron 1992, 9, 1099–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Hayashi, K.; Wakino, S.; Sugano, N.; Ozawa, Y.; Homma, K.; Saruta, T. Ca2+ channel subtypes and pharmacology in the kidney. Circ. Res. 2007, 100, 342–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Li, D.; Paterson, D.J. Pre-synaptic sympathetic calcium channels, cyclic nucleotide-coupled phosphodiesterases and cardiac excitability. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 2019, 94, 20–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Ellison, M.; McIntosh, J.M.; Olivera, B.M. Alpha-conotoxins ImI and ImII. Similar alpha 7 nicotinic receptor antagonists act at different sites. J. Biol. Chem. 2003, 278, 757–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  57. Broxton, N.M.; Down, J.G.; Gehrmann, J.; Alewood, P.F.; Satchell, D.G.; Livett, B.G. Alpha-conotoxin ImI inhibits the alpha-bungarotoxin-resistant nicotinic response in bovine adrenal chromaffin cells. J. Neurochem. 1999, 72, 1656–1662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Terlau, H.; Olivera, B.M. Conus Venoms: A Rich Source of Novel Ion Channel-Targeted Peptides. Physiol. Rev. 2004, 84, 41–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Azam, L.; McIntosh, J.M. Alpha-conotoxins as pharmacological probes of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Acta Pharmacol. Sin. 2009, 30, 771–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Giribaldi, J.; Dutertre, S. α-Conotoxins to explore the molecular, physiological and pathophysiological functions of neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Neurosci. Lett. 2018, 679, 24–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Heghinian, M.D.; Mejia, M.; Adams, D.J.; Godenschwege, T.A.; Marí, F. Inhibition of cholinergic pathways in Drosophila melanogaster by α-conotoxins. FASEB J. Off. Publ. Fed. Am. Soc. Exp. Biol. 2015, 29, 1011–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Mei, D.; Lin, Z.; Fu, J.; He, B.; Gao, W.; Ma, L.; Dai, W.; Zhang, H.; Wang, X.; Wang, J.; et al. The use of α-conotoxin ImI to actualize the targeted delivery of paclitaxel micelles to α7 nAChR-overexpressing breast cancer. Biomaterials 2015, 42, 52–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Walker, C.S.; Jensen, S.; Ellison, M.; Matta, J.A.; Lee, W.Y.; Imperial, J.S.; Duclos, N.; Brockie, P.J.; Madsen, D.M.; Isaac, J.T.R.; et al. A Novel Conus Snail Polypeptide Causes Excitotoxicity by Blocking Desensitization of AMPA Receptors. Curr. Biol. 2009, 19, 900–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Chen, L.; Durr, K.L.; Gouaux, E. X-ray structures of AMPA receptor-cone snail toxin complexes illuminate activation mechanism. Science 2014, 345, 1021–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Menting, J.G.; Gajewiak, J.; MacRaild, C.A.; Chou, D.H.; Disotuar, M.M.; Smith, N.A.; Miller, C.; Erchegyi, J.; Rivier, J.E.; Olivera, B.M.; et al. A minimized human insulin-receptor-binding motif revealed in a Conus geographus venom insulin. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2016, 23, 916–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Buczek, O.; Olivera, B.M.; Bulaj, G. Propeptide Does Not Act as an Intramolecular Chaperone but Facilitates Protein Disulfide Isomerase-Assisted Folding of a Conotoxin Precursor. Biochemistry 2004, 43, 1093–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Safavi-Hemami, H.; Bulaj, G.; Olivera, B.M.; Williamson, N.A.; Purcell, A.W. Identification of Conus peptidylprolyl cis-trans isomerases (PPIases) and assessment of their role in the oxidative folding of conotoxins. J. Biol. Chem. 2010, 285, 12735–12746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. Safavi-Hemami, H.; Li, Q.; Jackson, R.L.; Song, A.S.; Boomsma, W.; Bandyopadhyay, P.K.; Gruber, C.W.; Purcell, A.W.; Yandell, M.; Olivera, B.M.; et al. Rapid expansion of the protein disulfide isomerase gene family facilitates the folding of venom peptides. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 3227–3232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  69. Fuller, E.; Green, B.R.; Catlin, P.; Buczek, O.; Nielsen, J.S.; Olivera, B.M.; Bulaj, G. Oxidative folding of conotoxins sharing an identical disulfide bridging framework. FEBS J. 2005, 272, 1727–1738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Bandyopadhyay, P.K.; Colledge, C.J.; Walker, C.S.; Zhou, L.-M.; Hillyard, D.R.; Olivera, B.M. Conantokin-G Precursor and Its Role in g-Carboxylation by a Vitamin K-dependent Carboxylase from a Conus Snail. J. Biol. Chem. 1998, 273, 5447–5450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Bulaj, G.; Buczek, O.; Goodsell, I.; Jimenez, E.C.; Kranski, J.; Nielsen, J.S.; Garrett, J.E.; Olivera, B.M. Efficient oxidative folding of conotoxins and the radiation of venomous cone snails. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100, 14562–14568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Safavi-Hemami, H.; Lu, A.; Li, Q.; Fedosov, A.E.; Biggs, J.; Showers Corneli, P.; Seger, J.; Yandell, M.; Olivera, B.M. Venom Insulins of Cone Snails Diversify Rapidly and Track Prey Taxa. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2016, 33, 2924–2934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Chang, D.; Duda, T.F., Jr. Age-related association of venom gene expression and diet of predatory gastropods. BMC Evol. Biol. 2016, 16, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Duda, T.F.; Palumbi, S.R. Gene expression and feeding ecology: Evolution of piscivory in the venomous gastropod genus Conus. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B-Biol. Sci. 2004, 271, 1165–1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Phuong, M.A.; Mahardika, G.N. Targeted sequencing of venom genes from cone snail genomes reveals coupling between dietary breadth and conotoxin diversity. bioRxiv 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Phuong, M.A.; Mahardika, G.N.; Alfaro, M.E. Dietary breadth is positively correlated with venom complexity in cone snails. BMC Genom. 2016, 17, 401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  77. Chang, D.; Duda, T.F.J. Extensive and continuous duplication facilitates rapid evolution and diversification of gene families. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2012, 29, 2019–2029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  78. Duda, T.F.; Palumbi, S.R. Molecular genetics of ecological diversification: Duplication and rapid evolution of toxin genes of the venomous gastropod Conus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1999, 96, 6820–6823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  79. Puillandre, N.; Watkins, M.; Olivera, B.M. Evolution of Conus peptide genes: Duplication and positive selection in the A-superfamily. J. Mol. Evol. 2010, 70, 190–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Cartier, G.E.; Yoshikami, D.; Gray, W.R.; Luo, S.; Olivera, B.M.; McIntosh, J.M. A New a-Conotoxin Which Targets α3β2 Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors. J. Biol. Chem. 1996, 271, 7522–7528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Safronova, V.G.; Vulfius, C.A.; Shelukhina, I.V.; Mal’tseva, V.N.; Berezhnov, A.V.; Fedotova, E.I.; Miftahova, R.G.; Kryukova, E.V.; Grinevich, A.A.; Tsetlin, V.I. Nicotinic receptor involvement in regulation of functions of mouse neutrophils from inflammatory site. Immunobiology 2016, 221, 761–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Sanjakdar, S.S.; Maldoon, P.P.; Marks, M.J.; Brunzell, D.H.; Maskos, U.; McIntosh, J.M.; Bowers, M.S.; Damaj, M.I. Differential roles of α6β2* and α4β2* neuronal nicotinic receptors in nicotine- and cocaine-conditioned reward in mice. Neuropsychopharmacol. Off. Publ. Am. Coll. Neuropsychopharmacol. 2015, 40, 350–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Zhao-Shea, R.; Liu, L.; Soll, L.G.; Improgo, M.R.; Meyers, E.E.; McIntosh, J.M.; Grady, S.R.; Marks, M.J.; Gardner, P.D.; Tapper, A.R. Nicotine-mediated activation of dopaminergic neurons in distinct regions of the ventral tegmental area. Neuropsychopharmacol. Off. Publ. Am. Coll. Neuropsychopharmacol. 2011, 36, 1021–1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Ellison, M.; Haberlandt, C.; Gomez-Casati, M.E.; Watkins, M.; Elgoyhen, A.B.; McIntosh, J.M.; Olivera, B.M. Alpha-RgIA: A novel conotoxin that specifically and potently blocks the alpha9alpha10 nAChR. Biochemistry 2006, 45, 1511–1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Vincler, M.; Wittenauer, S.; Parker, R.; Ellison, M.; Olivera, B.M.; McIntosh, J.M. Molecular mechanism for analgesia involving specific antagonism of alpha9alpha10 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2006, 103, 17880–17884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  86. Satkunanathan, N.; Livett, B.G.; Gayler, K.; Sandall, D.; Down, J.G.; Khalil, Z. Alpha-conotoxin Vc1.1 alleviates neuropathic pain and accelerates functional recovery of injured neurones. Brain Res. 2005, 1059, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. McIntosh, J.M.; Absalom, N.; Chebib, M.; Elgoyhen, A.B.; Vincler, M. Alpha9 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors and the treatment of pain. Biochem. Pharmacol. 2009, 78, 693–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  88. Di Cesare Mannelli, L.; Cinci, L.; Micheli, L.; Zanardelli, M.; Pacini, A.; McIntosh, J.M.; Ghelardini, C. Alpha-conotoxin RgIA protects against the development of nerve injury-induced chronic pain and prevents both neuronal and glial derangement. Pain 2014, 155, 1986–1995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  89. Richter, K.; Sagawe, S.; Hecker, A.; Küllmar, M.; Askevold, I.; Damm, J.; Heldmann, S.; Pöhlmann, M.; Ruhrmann, S.; Sander, M.; et al. C-Reactive Protein Stimulates Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors to Control ATP-Mediated Monocytic Inflammasome Activation. Front. Immunol. 2018, 9, 1604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Richter, K.; Koch, C.; Perniss, A.; Wolf, P.M.; Schweda, E.K.H.; Wichmann, S.; Wilker, S.; Magel, I.; Sander, M.; McIntosh, J.M.; et al. Phosphocholine-Modified Lipooligosaccharides of Haemophilus influenzae Inhibit ATP-Induced IL-1β Release by Pulmonary Epithelial Cells. Molecules 2018, 23, 1979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Grau, V.; Richter, K.; Hone, A.J.; McIntosh, J.M. Conopeptides [V11L;V16D] ArIB and RgIA4: Powerful Tools for the Identification of Novel Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors in Monocytes. Front. Pharmacol. 2018, 9, 1499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Xiong, X.; Menting, J.; Disotuar, M.; Smith, N.; Delanie, C.; Ghabash, G.; Agrawal, R.; Wang, X.; He, X.; Fisher, S.; et al. A structurally minimized insulin based on cone-snail venom insulin principles. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2020, 27, 615–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Dave, K.; Lahiry, A. Conotoxins: Review and docking studies to determine potentials of conotoxin as an anticancer drug molecule. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2012, 12, 845–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Lubbers, N.L.; Campbell, T.J.; Polakowski, J.S.; Bulaj, G.; Layer, R.T.; Moore, J.; Gross, G.J.; Cox, B.F. Postischemic administration of CGX-1051, a peptide from cone snail venom, reduces infarct size in both rat and dog models of myocardial ischemia and reperfusion. J. Cardiovasc. Pharmacol. 2005, 46, 141–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Chen, P.; Dendorfer, A.; Finol-Urdaneta, R.K.; Terlau, H.; Olivera, B.M. Biochemical characterization of kappaM-RIIIJ, a Kv1.2 channel blocker: Evaluation of cardioprotective effects of kappaM-conotoxins. J. Biol. Chem. 2010, 285, 14882–14889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  96. Cordeiro, S.; Finol-Urdaneta, R.K.; Köpfer, D.; Markushina, A.; Song, J.; French, R.J.; Kopec, W.; de Groot, B.L.; Giacobassi, M.J.; Leavitt, L.S.; et al. Conotoxin κM-RIIIJ, a tool targeting asymmetric heteromeric K(v)1 channels. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 1059–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  97. Teichert, R.W.; Raghuraman, S.; Memon, T.; Cox, J.L.; Foulkes, T.; Rivier, J.E.; Olivera, B.M. Characterization of two neuronal subclasses through constellation pharmacology. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 12758–12763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Teichert, R.W.; Smith, N.J.; Raghuraman, S.; Yoshikami, D.; Light, A.R.; Olivera, B.M. Functional profiling of neurons through cellular neuropharmacology. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 1388–1395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  99. Coleman, S.K.; Newcombe, J.; Pryke, J.; Dolly, J.O. Subunit composition of Kv1 channels in human CNS. J. Neurochem. 1999, 73, 849–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Huang, R.; Wang, Y.; Li, J.; Jiang, X.; Li, Y.; Liu, B.; Wu, X.; Du, X.; Hang, Y.; Jin, M.; et al. Ca(2+)-independent but voltage-dependent quantal catecholamine secretion (CiVDS) in the mammalian sympathetic nervous system. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 20201–20209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Dooley, D.J.; Lupp, A.; Hertting, G.; Osswald, H. Omega-conotoxin GVIA and pharmacological modulation of hippocampal noradrenaline release. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 1988, 148, 261–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Hansen, T.; Tarasova, O.S.; Khammy, M.M.; Ferreira, A.; Kennard, J.A.; Andresen, J.; Staehr, C.; Brain, K.L.; Nilsson, H.; Aalkjaer, C. [Ca(2+) ] changes in sympathetic varicosities and Schwann cells in rat mesenteric arteries-Relation to noradrenaline release and contraction. Acta Physiol. 2019, 226, e13279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Scott, D.A.; Wright, C.E.; Angus, J.A. Actions of intrathecal omega-conotoxins CVID, GVIA, MVIIA, and morphine in acute and neuropathic pain in the rat. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2002, 451, 279–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Nigam, A.; Hargus, N.J.; Barker, B.S.; Ottolini, M.; Hounshell, J.A.; Bertram, E.H., III; Perez-Reyes, E.; Patel, M.K. Inhibition of T-Type calcium channels in mEC layer II stellate neurons reduces neuronal hyperexcitability associated with epilepsy. Epilepsy Res. 2019, 154, 132–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Tarif, N.; Bakris, G.L. Preservation of renal function: The spectrum of effects by calcium-channel blockers. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 1997, 12, 2244–2250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  106. Dolmetsch, R.E.; Pajvani, U.; Fife, K.; Spotts, J.M.; Greenberg, M.E. Signaling to the nucleus by an L-type calcium channel-calmodulin complex through the MAP kinase pathway. Science 2001, 294, 333–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  107. Hillyard, D.R.; Monje, V.D.; Mintz, I.M.; Bean, B.P.; Nadasdi, L.; Ramachandran, J.; Miljanich, G.; Azimi-Zoonooz, A.; McIntosh, J.M.; Cruz, L.J.; et al. A new Conus peptide ligand for mammalian presynaptic Ca2+ channels. Neuron 1992, 9, 69–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. McDonough, S.I.; Swartz, K.J.; Mintz, I.M.; Boland, L.M.; Bean, B.P. Inhibition of calcium channels in rat central and peripheral neurons by omega-conotoxin MVIIC. J. Neurosci. Off. J. Soc. Neurosci. 1996, 16, 2612–2623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Tian, G.F.; Azmi, H.; Takano, T.; Xu, Q.; Peng, W.; Lin, J.; Oberheim, N.; Lou, N.; Wang, X.; Zielke, H.R.; et al. An astrocytic basis of epilepsy. Nat. Med. 2005, 11, 973–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Carter, B.C.; Jahr, C.E. Postsynaptic, not presynaptic NMDA receptors are required for spike-timing-dependent LTD induction. Nat. Neurosci. 2016, 19, 1218–1224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Zhang, Y.; Qin, W.; Qian, Z.; Liu, X.; Wang, H.; Gong, S.; Sun, Y.G.; Snutch, T.P.; Jiang, X.; Tao, J. Peripheral pain is enhanced by insulin-like growth factor 1 through a G protein-mediated stimulation of T-type calcium channels. Sci. Signal. 2014, 7, ra94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Wang, H.; Wei, Y.; Pu, Y.; Jiang, D.; Jiang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Tao, J. Brain-derived neurotrophic factor stimulation of T-type Ca(2+) channels in sensory neurons contributes to increased peripheral pain sensitivity. Sci. Signal. 2019, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Phuong, M.A.; Mahardika, G.N. Targeted Sequencing of Venom Genes from Cone Snail Genomes Improves Understanding of Conotoxin Molecular Evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2018, 35, 1210–1224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  114. Turchetto, J.; Sequeira, A.F.; Ramond, L.; Peysson, F.; Bras, J.L.; Saez, N.J.; Duhoo, Y.; Blemont, M.; Guerreiro, C.I.; Quinton, L.; et al. High-throughput expression of animal venom toxins in Escherichia coli to generate a large library of oxidized disulphide-reticulated peptides for drug discovery. Microb. Cell Factories 2017, 16, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  115. Sequeira, A.F.; Turchetto, J.; Saez, N.J.; Peysson, F.; Ramond, L.; Duhoo, Y.; Blémont, M.; Fernandes, V.O.; Gama, L.T.; Ferreira, L.M.; et al. Gene design, fusion technology and TEV cleavage conditions influence the purification of oxidized disulphide-rich venom peptides in Escherichia coli. Microb. Cell Factories 2017, 16, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  116. Nielsen, L.D.; Foged, M.M.; Albert, A.; Bertelsen, A.B.; Soltoft, C.L.; Robinson, S.D.; Petersen, S.V.; Purcell, A.W.; Olivera, B.M.; Norton, R.S.; et al. The three-dimensional structure of an H-superfamily conotoxin reveals a granulin fold arising from a common ICK cysteine framework. J. Biol. Chem. 2019, 294, 8745–8759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Teichert, R.W.; Memon, T.; Aman, J.W.; Olivera, B.M. Using constellation pharmacology to define comprehensively a somatosensory neuronal subclass. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 2319–2324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  118. MacRae, C.A.; Peterson, R.T. Zebrafish as tools for drug discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2015, 14, 721–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Tay, B.; Stewart, T.A.; Davis, F.M.; Deuis, J.R.; Vetter, I. Development of a high-throughput fluorescent no-wash sodium influx assay. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0213751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Fosgerau, K.; Hoffmann, T. Peptide therapeutics: Current status and future directions. Drug Discov. Today 2015, 20, 122–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  121. Kohn, A.J. Conus Envenomation of Humans: In Fact and Fiction. Toxins 2018, 11, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  122. Kizer, K.W. Marine envenomations. J. Toxicol. Clin. Toxicol. 1983, 21, 527–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. McIntosh, J.M.; Jones, R.M. Cone venom--from accidental stings to deliberate injection. Toxicon 2001, 39, 1447–1451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Halford, Z.A.; Yu, P.Y.; Likeman, R.K.; Hawley-Molloy, J.S.; Thomas, C.; Bingham, J.P. Cone shell envenomation: Epidemiology, pharmacology and medical care. Diving Hyperb. Med. 2015, 45, 200–207. [Google Scholar]
  125. World Health Organization Snakebite Report. Available online: https://www.who.int/snakebites/disease/en/ (accessed on 14 July 2020).
  126. Chippaux, J.P.; Goyffon, M. Epidemiology of scorpionism: A global appraisal. Acta Trop. 2008, 107, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Kularatne, S.A.; Dinamithra, N.P.; Sivansuthan, S.; Weerakoon, K.G.; Thillaimpalam, B.; Kalyanasundram, V.; Ranawana, K.B. Clinico-epidemiology of stings and envenoming of Hottentotta tamulus (Scorpiones: Buthidae), the Indian red scorpion from Jaffna Peninsula in northern Sri Lanka. Toxicon 2015, 93, 85–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Rodrigo, C.; Gnanathasan, A. Management of scorpion envenoming: A systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. Syst. Rev. 2017, 6, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  129. Slagboom, J.; Kool, J.; Harrison, R.A.; Casewell, N.R. Haemotoxic snake venoms: Their functional activity, impact on snakebite victims and pharmaceutical promise. Br. J. Haematol. 2017, 177, 947–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  130. Saab, F.; Ionescu, C.; Schweiger, M.J. Bleeding risk and safety profile related to the use of eptifibatide: A current review. Expert Opin. Drug Saf. 2012, 11, 315–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Serrano, S.M. The long road of research on snake venom serine proteinases. Toxicon 2013, 62, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Ortiz, E.; Gurrola, G.B.; Schwartz, E.F.; Possani, L.D. Scorpion venom components as potential candidates for drug development. Toxicon 2015, 93, 125–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Tenorio, M.J. Conotoxins: Weapons of Mass Destruction? Cone Collect. 2013, 22, 6–7. [Google Scholar]
  134. McManus, O.B.; Musick, J.R.; Gonzalez, C. Peptides isolated from the venom of Conus geographus block neuromuscular transmission. Neurosci. Lett. 1981, 25, 57–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. McManus, O.B.; Musick, J.R. Postsynaptic block of frog neuromuscular transmission by conotoxin GI. J. Neurosci. Off. J. Soc. Neurosci. 1985, 5, 110–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  136. Groebe, D.R.; Gray, W.R.; Abramson, S.N. Determinants involved in the affinity of alpha-conotoxins GI and SI for the muscle subtype of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Biochemistry 1997, 36, 6469–6474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Almquist, R.G.; Kadambi, S.R.; Yasuda, D.M.; Weitl, F.L.; Polgar, W.E.; Toll, L.R. Paralytic activity of (des-Glu1)conotoxin GI analogs in the mouse diaphragm. Int. J. Pept. Protein Res. 1989, 34, 455–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Ahorukomeye, P.; Disotuar, M.M.; Gajewiak, G.; Karanth, S.; Watkins, M.; Robinson, S.D.; Flórez Salcedo, P.; Smith, N.A.; Smith, B.J.; Schlegel, A.; et al. Fish-hunting cone snail venoms are a rich source of minimized ligands of the vertebrate insulin receptor. eLife 2019, 8, e41574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. McIntosh, J.M.; Dowell, C.; Watkins, M.; Garrett, J.E.; Yoshikami, D.; Olivera, B.M. A-Conotoxin GIC from Conus geographus, a Novel Peptide Antagonist of Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors. J. Biol. Chem. 2002, 277, 33610–33615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  140. Clark, R.J.; Jensen, J.E.; Nevin, S.T.; Callaghan, B.P.; Adams, D.J.; Craik, D.J. The engineering of an orally active conotoxin for the treatment of neuropathic pain. Angew. Chem. 2010, 49, 6545–6548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  141. Suszkiw, J.B.; Murawsky, M.M.; Shi, M. Further characterization of phasic calcium influx in rat cerebrocortical synaptosomes: Inferences regarding calcium channel type(s) in nerve endings. J. Neurochem. 1989, 52, 1260–1269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Xiao, H.; Pan, H.; Liao, K.; Yang, M.; Huang, C. Snake Venom PLA(2), a Promising Target for Broad-Spectrum Antivenom Drug Development. BioMed Res. Int. 2017, 2017, 6592820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  143. Stirpe, F.; Barbieri, L.; Abbondanza, A.; Falasca, A.I.; Brown, A.N.; Sandvig, K.; Olsnes, S.; Pihl, A. Properties of volkensin, a toxic lectin from Adenia volkensii. J. Biol. Chem. 1985, 260, 14589–14595. [Google Scholar]
  144. Lewis, R.J.; Sellin, M.; Poli, M.A.; Norton, R.S.; MacLeod, J.K.; Sheil, M.M. Purification and characterization of ciguatoxins from moray eel (Lycodontis javanicus, Muraenidae). Toxicon 1991, 29, 1115–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Yokoyama, A.; Murata, M.; Oshima, Y.; Iwashita, T.; Yasumoto, T. Some chemical properties of maitotoxin, a putative calcium channel agonist isolated from a marine dinoflagellate. J. Biochem. 1988, 104, 184–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Moore, R.E.; Scheuer, P.J. Palytoxin: A new marine toxin from a coelenterate. Science 1971, 172, 495–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Tokuyama, T.; Daly, J.; Witkop, B.; Karle, I.L.; Karle, J. The structure of batrachotoxinin A, a nol vesteroidal alkaloid from the Colombian arrow poison frog, Phyllobates aurotaenia. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1968, 90, 1917–1918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  148. Halstead, B.W.; Schantz, E.J.; World Health Organization. Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1984; Volume 79, ISBN 9241700793. [Google Scholar]
  149. Stonik, V.A.; Stonik, I.V. Studies on marine toxins: Chemical and biological aspects. Stud. Mar. Toxins Chem. Biol. Asp. 2010, 79, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Cohen, J.A.; Guardia III, C.F.; Mowchun, J.J.; Stommel, E.W. Demyelinating Diseases of the Peripheral Nerves. In Nerves and Nerve Injuries; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015; pp. 895–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Jones, R.G.; Lee, L.; Landon, J. The effects of specific antibody fragments on the ‘irreversible’ neurotoxicity induced by Brown snake (Pseudonaja) venom. Br. J. Pharmacol. 1999, 126, 581–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  152. Tyler, M.I.; Barnett, D.; Nicholson, P.; Spence, I.; Howden, M.E. Studies on the subunit structure of textilotoxin, a potent neurotoxin from the venom of the Australian common brown snake (Pseudonaja textilis). Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1987, 915, 210–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Benton, B.J.; Keller, S.A.; Spriggs, D.L.; Capacio, B.R.; Chang, F.C. Recovery from the lethal effects of saxitoxin: A therapeutic window for 4-aminopyridine (4-AP). Toxicon 1998, 36, 571–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Europa Council Reculation (EC) No 428/2009. Available online: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/428/2012-06-15 (accessed on 14 July 2020).
  155. Australian Government Federal Register of Legislation Defence and Strategic Goods List 2019. Available online: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00424/Html/Text (accessed on 14 July 2020).
  156. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Select Agents and Toxins List. Available online: https://www.selectagents.gov/SelectAgentsandToxinsList.html (accessed on 14 July 2020).
  157. Center for Biosikring og Bioberedskab Liste over Kontrolbelagte Biologiske Stoffer. Available online: https://www.biosikring.dk/681/#c4878 (accessed on 14 July 2020).
  158. The Australia Group. Available online: https://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/minisite/theaustraliagroupnet/site/en/index.html (accessed on 14 July 2020).
  159. Olivera, B.M.; Gray, W.R.; Zeikus, R.; McIntosh, J.M.; Varga, J.; Rivier, J.; Desantos, V.; Cruz, L.J. Peptide neurotoxins from fish-hunting cone snails. Science. 1985, 230, 1338–1343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Patton, J.S.; Trinchero, P.; Platz, R.M. Bioavailability of pulmonary delivered peptides and proteins: α-interferon, calcitonins and parathyroid hormones. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Recent Advances in Drug Delivery Systems, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 21–24 February 1993; pp. 79–85. [Google Scholar]
  161. Adjei, A.; Garren, J. Pulmonary delivery of peptide drugs: Effect of particle size on bioavailability of leuprolide acetate in healthy male volunteers. Pharm. Res. 1990, 7, 565–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Agu, R.U.; Ugwoke, M.I.; Armand, M.; Kinget, R.; Verbeke, N. The lung as a route for systemic delivery of therapeutic proteins and peptides. Respir. Res. 2001, 2, 198–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  163. Hickey, A.J.; da Rocha, S.R. Pharmaceutical Inhalation Aerosol Technology, 3rd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2019; Volume 3, p. 746. [Google Scholar]
  164. Johnson, K.A. Preparation of peptide and protein powders for inhalation. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 1997, 26, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Yu, S.; Yang, B.; Yan, L.; Dai, Q. Sensitive Detection of α-Conotoxin GI in Human Plasma Using a Solid-Phase Extraction Column and LC-MS/MS. Toxins 2017, 9, 235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  166. Clark, R.J.; Fischer, H.; Dempster, L.; Daly, N.L.; Rosengren, K.J.; Nevin, S.T.; Meunier, F.A.; Adams, D.J.; Craik, D.J. Engineering stable peptide toxins by means of backbone cyclization: Stabilization of the alpha-conotoxin MII. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 13767–13772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  167. Di, L. Strategic approaches to optimizing peptide ADME properties. AAPS J. 2015, 17, 134–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Smith, M.L.; Vorce, S.P.; Holler, J.M.; Shimomura, E.; Magluilo, J.; Jacobs, A.J.; Huestis, M.A. Modern instrumental methods in forensic toxicology. J. Anal. Toxicol. 2007, 31, 237–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Infectious Diseases Society of America. Available online: https://www.idsociety.org (accessed on 6 October 2004).
  170. El-Aziz, T.M.A.; Ravelet, C.; Molgo, J.; Fiore, E.; Pale, S.; Amar, M.; Al-Khoury, S.; Dejeu, J.; Fadl, M.; Ronjat, M.; et al. Efficient functional neutralization of lethal peptide toxins in vivo by oligonucleotides. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 7202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  171. Endean, R.; Rudkin, C. Studies of the venoms of some Conidae. Toxicon 1963, 1, 49–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Kohn, A.J. Piscivorous Gastropods of the Genus Conus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1956, 42, 168–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Biomedicines 08 00235 g001 550
Figure 1. Shells of selected cone snail species from nine subgenera (for subgenus classification see [5]). Top row: fish-hunting cone snails (from left to right: Conus geographus (Gastridium), Conus magus and Conus consors (Pionoconus), Conus purpurascens (Chelyconus)), middle row: snail-hunting cone snails (Conus marmoreus (Conus), Conus textile and Conus ammiralis (Cylinder), Conus omaria (Darioconus)), bottom row: worm-hunting species (Conus imperialis and Conus regius (Stephanoconus), Conus pulicarius (Puncticulis), Conus mustelinus (Rhizoconus)). Shells not to scale.
Figure 1. Shells of selected cone snail species from nine subgenera (for subgenus classification see [5]). Top row: fish-hunting cone snails (from left to right: Conus geographus (Gastridium), Conus magus and Conus consors (Pionoconus), Conus purpurascens (Chelyconus)), middle row: snail-hunting cone snails (Conus marmoreus (Conus), Conus textile and Conus ammiralis (Cylinder), Conus omaria (Darioconus)), bottom row: worm-hunting species (Conus imperialis and Conus regius (Stephanoconus), Conus pulicarius (Puncticulis), Conus mustelinus (Rhizoconus)). Shells not to scale.
Biomedicines 08 00235 g001
Table
Table 1. Pharmacological families of conotoxins (in alphabetical order, modified from [10]).
Table 1. Pharmacological families of conotoxins (in alphabetical order, modified from [10]).
Pharmacological FamilyMolecular TargetMolecular MechanismReference ConotoxinReference
α (alpha)Nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChR)Receptor antagonistsGI[11]
γ (gamma)Neuronal pacemaker cation channelsChannel activator, potentially indirect effectPnVIIA[12]
δ (delta)Voltage-gated Na channel Delay channel inactivationPVIA[13]
ι (iota)Voltage-gated Na channelsChannel activatorsRXIA[14]
κ (kappa)Voltage-gated K channels Channel blockersPVIIA[15]
μ (mu)Voltage-gated Na channels Channel blockersGIIIA[16]
ρ (rho)α1 adrenoreceptors Allosteric inhibitorTIA[17]
σ (sigma)5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor (HTR3A)Receptor antagonistGVIIIA[18]
τ (tao)Somatostatin receptor (SSTR) Receptor antagonistCnVA[19]
χ (chi)Norepinephrine TransporterInhibitorMrIA[17]
ω (omega)Voltage-gated Ca channels Channel blockersGVIA[20]
Φ (phi)Promotes cell proliferationNot determinedMiXXVIIA[21]
Examples of pharmacological families without Greek letter designation
ConantokinsN-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR)Receptor antagonistsConantokin-G[22]
ConinsulinsInsulin receptorReceptor agonistsCon-Insulin G1[23]
ConopressinsVasopressin receptorReceptor agonists and antagonistsLys-Conopressin-G[24]
Table
Table 2. Overview of conotoxin drug leads.
Table 2. Overview of conotoxin drug leads.
ConotoxinMolecular TargetClinical IndicationStage in DevelopmentCompany
MVIIA (ziconotide, Prialt®)Cav2.2 channelRefractory chronic and cancer painApprovedTerSera Therapeutics, Riemser Pharma GmbH, Eisai Co., Ltd.
α-RgIA4 (KCP-400)nAChR (subtype α9α10)Neuropathic PainPre-clinical (ongoing)Kineta, Inc.
Mini-Ins (conotoxin insulin analog)Insulin receptorType 1 diabetesPre-clinical (ongoing)Monolog LLC
Contulakin-G (CGX-1160)Neurotensin receptorNeuropathic PainPhase I (on hold, demise of company)Cognetix, Inc.
α-Vc1.1 (ACV1)nAChR (subtype α9α10)Neuropathic PainPhase I (discontinued, lack of efficacy)Metabolic Pharmaceuticals
ω-CVIDCav2.2 channelChronic PainPhase II (discontinued)Amrad, Inc.
χ-MrIA (Xen2174)Norepinephrine transporterPostoperative paiPhase II
(discontinued)		Xenome, Inc.
Conantokin-G (CGX-1007)NMDA receptor (subtype NR2B)Intractable
Epilepsy		Pre-clinical (discontinued, demise of company)Cognetix, Inc.
κ-PVIIA (CGX-1051)Kv1 subfamilyCardioprotectionPre-clinical (discontinued, demise of company)Cognetix, Inc.
Table
Table 3. Examples of conotoxins used as research tools.
Table 3. Examples of conotoxins used as research tools.
ConotoxinTargetFeatureUseful in Field(s) of Research
α-GI, μ-SmIIIA, Conantokin-GVarious targetsSubstrates for enzymes involved in peptide biosynthesisElucidating peptide biosynthesis and folding [68,69,70]
α-ImIα7 nAChRSubtype selectivity [56]Targeted drug delivery in cancer [62], engineering D. melanogaster as better human disease model [61], chromaffin cell signaling [57]
α-MIInAChRSubtype selective [80]Inflammation [81], reward and addiction [82,83]
α-Vc1.1 and α-Rg1Aα9α10 nAChR Subtype selective [84,85]Neuropathic pain and inflammation [86,87,88], immunology [89,90,91]
Con-ikot-ikotAMPA receptorDisrupts desensitization, stabilizes open conformation [63,64]Receptor crystallization [64]
Con-Insulin G1Insulin receptorMinimized binding motif at the insulin receptor [65]Receptor binding and drug design [92]
κ-PVIIAVoltage-gated K+ channelsVoltage-sensitive binding/blocking of voltage-gated K-channels [15]Cancer [93], cardioprotection in ischemia [94]
κM-RIIIJVoltage-gated K+ channelsSubtype selectivity [95,96]Neuronal profiling [97,98,5,6], channel subtype expression profiling [96,99]
ω-GVIAVoltage-gated Ca2+ channelsSubtype selective [37,99]Neurotransmission [100,101,102], pain [103], cardiology [55], epilepsy [104], renal function [105], nuclear signaling [106]
ω-MVIICVoltage-gated Ca2+ channelsInhibits various subtypes broadly [107,108]Epilepsy [109], long-term depression [110], pain [111,112]
Table
Table 4. Comparison of the median lethal dose (LD50) of different toxins and toxic substances.
Table 4. Comparison of the median lethal dose (LD50) of different toxins and toxic substances.
ToxinLD50 in Mice (µg/kg)Route of AdministrationType of ToxinSourceKnown Antivenom/AntidoteReference
α-conotoxin GI12IPPeptideConus geographusNo[11]
ω-conotoxin GVIA≈60IPPeptideConus geographusNo[141]
Textilotoxin1IPProteinPseudonaja textilisDepends *[142]
Volkensin1.38–1.73 IPProteinAdenia volkensiiNo[143]
Ciguatoxin-10.25IP and oralPolycyclic poylethersVarious dinoflagellatesNo[144]
Maitotoxin0.13IPPolycyclic poylethersVarious dinoflagellatesNo †[145]
Palytoxin0.15IVPolycyclic poylethersPalythoa corals and dinoflagellates (or bacteria living on these)No[146]
Batrachotoxin2SCAlkaloidVarious beetles, birds, and frogsNo[147]
Saxitoxin10IPAlkaloidVarious marine dinoflagellatesIn guinea pigs #[148]
Tetrodotoxin8IVAlkaloidVarious marine bacteria (e.g., Pseudoalteromonas tetraodonis) symbiotically living with numerous marine animals, e.g., Tetraodontidae fish, Hapalochlaena octopodes, and Naticidae snailsNo †[149]
† Supportive treatment provided [150]. * After initial binding phase completed, antivenom seems to have no effect [151,152]. # 4-Aminopyridine (marketed as Ampyra in the US, and used to manage symptoms of multiple sclerosis) has been shown to reverse the effect of saxitoxin poisoning in guinea pigs [153].

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bjørn-Yoshimoto, W.E.; Ramiro, I.B.L.; Yandell, M.; McIntosh, J.M.; Olivera, B.M.; Ellgaard, L.; Safavi-Hemami, H. Curses or Cures: A Review of the Numerous Benefits Versus the Biosecurity Concerns of Conotoxin Research. Biomedicines 2020, 8, 235. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines8080235

AMA Style

Bjørn-Yoshimoto WE, Ramiro IBL, Yandell M, McIntosh JM, Olivera BM, Ellgaard L, Safavi-Hemami H. Curses or Cures: A Review of the Numerous Benefits Versus the Biosecurity Concerns of Conotoxin Research. Biomedicines. 2020; 8(8):235. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines8080235

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bjørn-Yoshimoto, Walden E., Iris Bea L. Ramiro, Mark Yandell, J. Michael McIntosh, Baldomero M. Olivera, Lars Ellgaard, and Helena Safavi-Hemami. 2020. "Curses or Cures: A Review of the Numerous Benefits Versus the Biosecurity Concerns of Conotoxin Research" Biomedicines 8, no. 8: 235. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines8080235

APA Style

Bjørn-Yoshimoto, W. E., Ramiro, I. B. L., Yandell, M., McIntosh, J. M., Olivera, B. M., Ellgaard, L., & Safavi-Hemami, H. (2020). Curses or Cures: A Review of the Numerous Benefits Versus the Biosecurity Concerns of Conotoxin Research. Biomedicines, 8(8), 235. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines8080235

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop