No prob, I'll send you a nice big female (getting out a neon blue marker and a P. regalis ) Let us know how it goes eh?? ;PSheri said:I will if someone sends me the subject and I get to keep it as a souvenir of the experiment.
(Like for real... so just PM me, ok?)
Andrew vV said:No prob, I'll send you a nice big female (getting out a neon blue marker and a P. regalis ) Let us know how it goes eh?? ;P
Damn.... shouldnt have offered, you'd probably take P. regalis off my hands as fast as metallica, LOL
Venom said:
Well... peptides are proteins. Even they are shorter.
If I had one, I would make this happen!I will if someone sends me the subject and I get to keep it as a souvenir of the experiment.
(Like for real... so just PM me, ok?)
Because peptides are too small for the immune system's agents to detect and react to. Let me put it this way: by being composed partly of protein, a virus is, by definition, already far larger than a peptide. We're talking molecules smaller than a virus, whereas your immune agents are cell-sized. It's like having too small a radar signature to be detectable. Pollen allergies, peanut allergies--they're all caused by reactions to proteins. Since tarantula venom ( be careful here, this doesn't cover "true spider" venom ) is based on peptides and not proteins, its toxic components "fly under the radar," and are essentially hypoallergenic.
Perhaps it's not possible to have the same "allergic" reaction from a T bite as from a bee sting, but is it not possible to have an equally severe reaction? Something different could be happening on a cellular level, but the reaction could be very similar.
well said, another point is the low frequency of T bite's (similar to low frequency of armadillo to human leprosy transmission lol), poor reporting and documentation from the areas where the majority of bites do occur (south america, central america, south east asia, china, and the south pacific islands), lack of studies on T's in general or their venom, vast differences in T venom between genus' and lack of comparison studies, secondary contributing factors (ie gangrene and other infections). As has been mentioned peptides being small and going un-noticed by the body doesn't mean that other larger proteins don't exist in T venom it has been shown in some of the few studies, even so thats shown by the swelling that occurs in the body beyond the initial puncture area (which can be said to swell just from the puncture itself). The biggest problem is that T venom study doesn't pay at this point, other venoms with greater compositions of larger proteins are easier to work with and isolate. The growing use of these proteins in the experimental medical field for treatments of various physical ailments (arthritis ect) may lead to more intense studies of the other less workable venoms, but thats still down the road a bit. We shouldn't be surprised by this, it's been going on with plants (a large reservoir of natural pharmocopeia) and the destruction of so many unstudied plant species in the rain forests. I really enjoy these science based discussions we have and the ideas, theories, and hypothesis we have. I think many of our ideas have merit and well funded researchers should consider follow through on them, but we all need to remember that despite what we believe or think most of what we assume, have heard, have read, or believe is based on very spotty and limited study. This thread has been great at showing how varied our levels of knowledge are and the links to studies gives everyone the opportunity to increase their understanding of the field. Cheers to the OP, I wish these type of discussions took place more often.
NORMALLY, these short peptides are conjugated onto something bigger - like PVA particles, or BSA.