Evolution
Snake venom consists of many different toxin proteins: these can either have enzymatic activity, which typically assists in digestion, or can be shorter peptides that are used to immobilize prey. Toxin proteins make up many multigene families, and arose from gene recruitment of proteins that do not code for toxins, followed by extensive evolutionary modification. Toxin evolution follows the birth-and-death model of gene families, where duplication followed by functional diversification results in the creation of structurally related proteins that have slightly different functions. It is thought that venom as a way to immobilize prey was beneficial in allowing the uncoupling of feeding system and locomotion, which are coupled in the Haenophidians, which then enabled snakes with venom systems to colonize open areas. Venom continue to evolve as specific toxins are modified to target a specific prey, and it is found that toxins vary according to diet in some species.
The presence of enzymes in snake venom was once believed to be an adaptation to assist digestion. However, studies of the western diamondback rattlesnake, a snake with highly proteolytic venom, show that venom has no impact on the time required for food to pass through the gut.
Read more about this topic: Snake Venom
Famous quotes containing the word evolution:
“Like Freud, Jung believes that the human mind contains archaic remnants, residues of the long history and evolution of mankind. In the unconscious, primordial “universally human images” lie dormant. Those primordial images are the most ancient, universal and “deep” thoughts of mankind. Since they embody feelings as much as thought, they are properly “thought feelings.” Where Freud postulates a mass psyche, Jung postulates a collective psyche.”
—Patrick Mullahy (b. 1912)
“By contrast with history, evolution is an unconscious process. Another, and perhaps a better way of putting it would be to say that evolution is a natural process, history a human one.... Insofar as we treat man as a part of nature—for instance in a biological survey of evolution—we are precisely not treating him as a historical being. As a historically developing being, he is set over against nature, both as a knower and as a doer.”
—Owen Barfield (b. 1898)