News Release on Dr. Fry's New Venom Study

Take it as you will. I'm not crediting or discounting his findings, merely posting an article on them. I have my thoughts on the subject as I'm sure many others do as well.

----------------------------------------------

Venom Hunt Finds 'Harmless' Snakes A Potential Danger

Dr Bryan Fry is Deputy Director of the University of Melbourne's Australian Venom Research Unit and his discovery has shaken the foundations of reptile evolution, opened the door for a new class of novel drugs and, as many of these assumed harmless snakes are sold in pet stores worldwide, is causing experts to re-evaluate the relative danger of non-venomous snakes.

His findings appear in the journal Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry (August 2003), the Journal of Molecular Evolution (October 2003) and Molecular Biology and Evolution (in press). Fry has also received an Australian Research Council (ARC) grant of $250,000 over three years to continue this research.

Dr Fry is fascinated by venomous snakes and venom evolution. Last year he set off on a worldwide herpetological adventure to track down when and in what snake venom first evolved. The result was the ground-breaking discovery that snake venom developed only once in evolution and it did so about 60 million years ago, millions of years earlier than previously thought, and before the snakes we commonly think of as non-venomous even arrived on the scene.

"Contrary to popular belief, venom appears to have evolved at about the same time as advanced snakes started to appear. Even fangs and large venom glands arrived much later," says Dr Fry.

"This means the first venomous snakes evolved from the heavy-bodied swamp monsters similar to the anacondas of today. These snakes traded in their heavy muscle for speed and agility. Venom rather than muscle became the tool necessary for these snakes to capture their prey," he says.

The consequence of this is that venom is an inherent condition of virtually all advanced snakes, and that includes the assumed non-venomous species.

Dr Fry has now analysed the venoms from the many different snake lineages collected from his worldwide hunt and elsewhere, some of these were common pet-store snakes. He discovered that their venoms are just as complex as venoms from some of the world's deadliest snakes such as the cobras, puff adders and taipans.

"Some non-venomous snakes have been previously thought to have only mild 'toxic saliva'. But these results suggest that they actually possess true venoms," says Dr Fry.

"We even isolated from a rat snake, a snake common in pet stores, a typical cobra-style neurotoxin, one that is as potent as comparative toxins found in close relatives of the cobra," he says.

Fry's worldwide wandering has also boosted the number of what were previously assumed to be non-venomous snakes from a mere few hundred to more than 2000.

These snakes typically have smaller quantities of venom and lack fangs, but they can still deliver their venom via their numerous sharp teeth," says Dr Fry.

"But not all of these snakes are dangerous. It does mean, however, that we need to re-evaluate the relative danger of non-venomous snakes," he says.

Dr Fry trekked from Madagascar to Melbourne, dived for sea snakes in the remote South Pacific Islands, explored caves, climbed trees and milked over 2,000 snakes a year to gather his research findings.

"It was extreme science, but I had a complete blast doing it," he says.

As well as the evolutionary revelations, Dr Fry has also uncovered a vast range of new and unstudied toxins for toxinologists.

"The natural pharmacology that exists witihin animal venoms is a tremendous resource waiting to be tapped," he says.

"The toxin isolated from the ratsnake is an excellent candidate for use as a laboratory tool or even as a scaffold for use in drug design and development. The medical community may also benefit by exploring the effects of these unknown toxins in the human body."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University Of Melbourne

Link to Article

Sounds kinda like a seriously slanted news article to put a more exciting spin on otherwise very technical and kinda dry information...

I also think that it gives a bit of credit where it isn't strictly deserved as it was stated... Sorta... allow me to explain a bit before crucifying me...

It's been known for decades that many snakes produce toxins and chemical compounds in their saliva that are essentially weak forms of what could potentially evolve into potent venom given the right amount of time and the proper conditions for a few hundred million years... What Dr Fry did was track down a lot of the specifics that nobody had bothered to do before and trace back a much more specific natural history and evolutionary path than was previously known.

Kinda like... "everyone" knows that garter and water snakes have anticoagulants in their saliva, occasionally people can have allergic reactions and the result is some minor localized tissue damage beyond that which was caused physically by the teeth... Now the exact compounds have been analyzed and the comparasin between these "warm" species and fully hot and reccognized venomous species can be made.

Written out strictly as a herpetological or toxinology report, it lacks the appeal that'll keep the masses reading to the end of the article though, so the result is a far less accurate piece that might mislead the naive into killing rat snakes because they were just discovered to have cobra venom.

Clay, what exactlly are your opinons on Dr. Frys findings? It is my biology professors and I feelings that this not really a new discovery. Dr. Fry took it into much further detail.As seamus said thamophis and nerodia species posses anticoagulants, and i believe the rat snake Dr. brian was talking about is Gonyosoma Oxycephalum( Red talied Green rat or racer). Captive records of bites by this species showed paresthesia as a common effect. Paresthesia is usually the first sign in envenomation by snakes possesing virulent post-synaptic neuro-toxins. So Dr. Fry is just elaburating or trying to prove something already thought to be possible. I think it best, never to question someone with the prefix DR, in front of thier name. In my own experience, it usually makes ya look dumb. I have tried it on several occasions. Just a few thoughts.

Dr Fry does have his own forums... Would very likely be more than open to discussion of the article specifically or his findings in general... http://www.venomdoc.com/forums There may even be a discussion of it already on there, I don't check it as often as I should.

I know that every time (not many but a few) which I have contacted him, his responses were very polite and informative. He took the time to respond to any questions as legitimate questions, rather than just ignoring it as another email from somebody who he doesn't know.

Dream Vacation:

Dr Fry trekked from Madagascar to Melbourne, dived for sea snakes in the remote South Pacific Islands, explored caves, climbed trees and milked over 2,000 snakes a year to gather his research findings.

geez, must be hard being a Doctor I am starting to think I am going into the wrong field... I bet that this was an all-expenses paid trip too. I've always wanted to go to Madagascar, I hear the lemurs there are really cool.

Melissa, what field are you going into?
I hope(in 5 more years of school), to have my doctorate in Toxinology.
Grants are the greatest thing ever, to have someone else(National Geographic Society), pay for you to trek around the world studying snakes. Must be rough, HUH?! Can't wait.

I'm going into Early CHildhood Ed. (birth through grade 3) So I will get all expenses paid field trips to the planetarium, the pumpkin patch, the local petting zoo, and maybe to the fire department! But I don't think I could take my kindergarteners to Madagascar. Darn

Originally posted by colubridman88
Clay, what exactlly are your opinons on Dr. Frys findings?

It's not the actual findings concerning the presence of toxins in colubrids that I have a problem with, it's other suggestions that are made in relation to the paper.
I have no problem believing that there are toxins present in ratsnakes etc, Dr. Fry says they're there and that's fine. It's what he proposes as the current state of development of these snakes that I find very difficult to accept.

Most of what I will outline here was not specifically addressed, in depth at least, in his paper, but comes from a conversation I had with him a few months ago.
He suggests that all colubrids are descended from venomous ancestors, meaning that at some point in history, they went through an evolutionary regression and lost this ability to manufacture and deliver a potent venom.
He further states that a prerequisite for a venom delivery system is a potent venom, meaning that a snake would develop the venom first, then a mechanism for delivering it, i.e. fangs. This requires that what we consider to be non venomous colubrids lost their fangs and are now in the process of losing their venom, with the exception of the Lampropeltis group which has completed the regression.

My problem lies in the reason for it. He offers no suggestion as to any influencing factor that could have caused such a regression.
Evolution by definition works in a manner to improve an organism. Changes are made and only if they are beneficial, or at least neutral, are they retained. Detrimental changes fail to survive long term.
Let's look at the two basic methods of acquiring prey in snakes, envenomation and constriction. Envenomation is more effecient, as well as safer than constriction. A constrictor ir required to remain in direct contact with a prey item until its death, while a venomous snake can bite and release, remiving itself from danger while the prey dies. Venom takes the further step of breaking down cells acting as a pre-digestion mechanism therefore increasing the effeciency of digestion itself.
Taken from this perspective, a venomous snake losing it's elongated fangs, and then it's venom as well, would appear to be a serious regression evolutionarily speaking. I can think of no basis whatsoever for such a regression. Why would a snake in possession of an effecient method of procuring and digesting prey abandon it in favor of a less effecient and more dangerous method.
Dr. Fry offers no explanation for this either. The closest he comes is offering a logical tautology by saying there was apparently a reason for it since it happened and they are still here. This requires the acceptance of the assumption that they were indeed venomous to begin with.

I would find it much easier to believe that rather than losing their ability to envenomate, they are instead developing it. This would be a natural progession in development with easily determined benefits.
Instead this evolutionary idea is proposed without even a theory as to the catalyst that may have triggered it. There just is no niche that can be filled by a non venomous snake that cannot also be filled by a venomous one.

I think it best, never to question someone with the prefix DR, in front of thier name. In my own experience, it usually makes ya look dumb. I have tried it on several occasions. Just a few thoughts.

This statement surprises me coming from a future man of science. Accept the conclusion if the reasoning is acceptable and the methods are proper, but not soley on the basis that it was stated by someone with a PhD.
Theories and even "facts" are disproven regularly as part of the advancement of science. If doctors are never questioned, the truth may never be reached. Likewise, if a Dr resents intelligent debate of his conclusions, he's not really searching for truth at all.
You may look dumb, but at the least, you'll walk away with more knowledge and a better understanding of why. You also may present a previously unconsidered perspective that raises new questions.