Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33600405›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2021

Biogeographical venom variation in the Indian spectacled cobra (Naja naja) underscores the pressing need for pan-India efficacious snakebite therapy.

R R Senji Laxme, Saurabh Attarde, Suyog Khochare, Vivek Suranse, Gerard Martin, Nicholas R Casewell, Romulus Whitaker, Kartik Sunagar

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 92 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Snakebite envenoming in India: it is time we look beyond the concept of the Big Four species.Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · 2025
    Review
  9. ExplainingToxins · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Tiny but Mighty:Toxins · 2024
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

R R Senji LaxmeEvolutionary Venomics Lab. Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.ORCID 0000-0002-9151-7771
Saurabh AttardeEvolutionary Venomics Lab. Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.ORCID 0000-0003-2632-6837
Suyog KhochareEvolutionary Venomics Lab. Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
Vivek SuranseEvolutionary Venomics Lab. Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
Gerard MartinThe Liana Trust, Survey #1418/1419 Rathnapuri, Hunsur, Karnataka, India.ORCID 0000-0002-1409-2984
Nicholas R CasewellCentre for Snakebite Research & Interventions, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8035-4719
Romulus WhitakerMadras Crocodile Bank Trust/Centre for Herpetology, Mamallapuram, Tamil Nadu, India.ORCID 0000-0001-8263-9139
Kartik SunagarEvolutionary Venomics Lab. Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.ORCID 0000-0003-0998-1581
Indian Institute of Science Bangalore · INLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine · GBMadras Diabetes Research Foundation · IN

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 200517/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSnake venom composition is dictated by various ecological and environmental factors, and can exhibit dramatic variation across geographically disparate populations of the same species. This molecular diversity can undermine the efficacy of snakebite treatments, as antivenoms produced against venom from one population may fail to neutralise others. India is the world's snakebite hotspot, with 58,000 fatalities and 140,000 morbidities occurring annually. Spectacled cobra (Naja naja) and Russell's viper (Daboia russelii) are known to cause the majority of these envenomations, in part due to their near country-wide distributions. However, the impact of differing ecologies and environment on their venom compositions has not been comprehensively studied.

methodsHere, we used a multi-disciplinary approach consisting of venom proteomics, biochemical and pharmacological analyses, and in vivo research to comparatively analyse N. naja venoms across a broad region (>6000 km; seven populations) covering India's six distinct biogeographical zones.

findingsBy generating the most comprehensive pan-Indian proteomic and toxicity profiles to date, we unveil considerable differences in the composition, pharmacological effects and potencies of geographically-distinct venoms from this species and, through the use of immunological assays and preclinical experiments, demonstrate alarming repercussions on antivenom therapy. We find that commercially-available antivenom fails to effectively neutralise envenomations by the pan-Indian populations of N. naja, including a complete lack of neutralisation against the desert Naja population.

conclusionOur findings highlight the significant influence of ecology and environment on snake venom composition and potency, and stress the pressing need to innovate pan-India effective antivenoms to safeguard the lives, limbs and livelihoods of the country's 200,000 annual snakebite victims.

Indexed as

Naja najaAnimalsAntiveninsEcosystemElapid VenomsGeographyIndiaProteomeAntiveninsElapid VenomsProteome

Identifiers

PMID33600405
PMCPMC7924803
OpenAlexW3130533559

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.