Plicidentine and the repeated origins of snake venom fangs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Snake fangs are an iconic exemplar of a complex adaptation, but despite striking developmental and morphological similarities, they probably evolved independently in several lineages of venomous snakes. How snakes could, uniquely among vertebrates, repeatedly evolve their complex venom delivery apparatus is an intriguing question. Here we shed light on the repeated evolution of snake venom fangs using histology, high-resolution computed tomography (microCT) and biomechanical modelling. Our examination of venomous and non-venomous species reveals that most snakes have dentine infoldings at the bases of their teeth, known as plicidentine, and that in venomous species, one of these infoldings was repurposed to form a longitudinal groove for venom delivery. Like plicidentine, venom grooves originate from infoldings of the developing dental epithelium prior to the formation of the tooth hard tissues. Derivation of the venom groove from a large plicidentine fold that develops early in tooth ontogeny reveals how snake venom fangs could originate repeatedly through the co-option of a pre-existing dental feature even without close association to a venom duct. We also show that, contrary to previous assumptions, dentine infoldings do not improve compression or bending resistance of snake teeth during biting; plicidentine may instead have a role in tooth attachment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".