Testing Macrovipera venoms reveals prothrombin activation is predominant in coagulation, suggesting new therapeutic insights.
Venoms of the Palearctic vipers in the Macrovipera genus cause severe procoagulant clinical effects, yet the precise molecular targets remain incompletely defined. To fill this toxicological knowledge gap, we tested five Macrovipera venoms—M. lebetina cernovi, M. l. obtusa, M. l. turanica (Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan localities), and M. schweizeri—using plasma clotting assays, Factors VII, X, XI, and XII and prothrombin zymogen activation assays, and SDS-PAGE to visualise Factor V (FV) cleavage. All venoms induced extremely rapid clot formation (10.5–12.5 s) compared with the negative control (spontaneous clotting) of 334.6 ± 3.6 s) and the positive control (kaolin trigger) of 55.8 ± 1.9 s. Activation of FVII or FXI was negligible, whereas consistent FX activation and species-variable FXII activation, both moderate, were observed. Prothrombin remained inert in the absence of cofactors, but the presence of FV or FVa elicited potent thrombin generation. SDS-PAGE confirmed proteolytic conversion of the 330 kDa FV zymogen into the ~105 kDa heavy and ~80 kDa light chains of FVa by the venoms of all species. This data demonstrates that Macrovipera venoms rely on a dual enzyme strategy: (i) activation of FV to FVa by serine proteases and (ii) FVa-dependent prothrombin activation by metalloproteases. These results reveal that prothrombin activation is the dominant procoagulant pathway and overshadows the historically emphasised FX activation. This mechanism mirrors, yet is evolutionarily independent from, the FXa:FVa prothrombinase formation seen in Australian elapid venoms, highlighting convergent evolution of cofactor-hijacking strategies among snakes. The discovery of potent FVa-mediated prothrombin activation in Macrovipera challenges existing paradigms of viperid venom action, prompts re-evaluation of related genera (e.g., Daboia), and underpins the design of targeted antivenom and therapeutic interventions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Champagne et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: