不同抗霉菌毒素添加剂在受到黄曲霉毒素和伏马菌素挑战的猪肠外植体中的应用研究:体外和体内模型

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY World Mycotoxin Journal Pub Date : 2023-11-27 DOI:10.1163/18750796-20232854
J. Alves Sarturi, C. Tonial Simões, C. Rosa da Silva, I. Fabris Laber, L.M. de Lima Schlösser, D.F. Sturza, C.A. Mallmann
{"title":"不同抗霉菌毒素添加剂在受到黄曲霉毒素和伏马菌素挑战的猪肠外植体中的应用研究:体外和体内模型","authors":"J. Alves Sarturi, C. Tonial Simões, C. Rosa da Silva, I. Fabris Laber, L.M. de Lima Schlösser, D.F. Sturza, C.A. Mallmann","doi":"10.1163/18750796-20232854","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aimed to develop an ex vivo model to evaluate the efficacy of antimycotoxin additives (AMAs) against aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) and fumonisin B1 (FB1) using intestinal explants of growing pigs. Four assays of two treatments with 12 replicates each (24 jejunal explants used per assay) were performed using an Ussing Chamber (UC) system: two assays to evaluate two AMAs for AFB1 and two assays to evaluate two AMAs for FB1. The difference between the two assays for both AFB1 and FB1 was the composition of the additive used. The treatments for AFB1 assays were control [Buffer solution (BS) + 1 mg/l AFB1] and AMA (BS + 1 mg/l AFB1 + 0.5% AMA 1 or 2). The treatments for FB1 assays were control (BS + 50 mg/l FB1) and AMA (BS + 50 mg/l FB1 + 0.5% AMA 3 or 4). The efficacy of the four additives was also tested in vitro. The AFB1 concentrations in the explants from AMAs 1 and 2 were lower () than in the control. AMAs 1 and 2 reduced the jejunal absorption of AFB1 by 83.4 and 72.9%, respectively. Explants from AMAs 3 and 4 had lower FB1 () concentration when compared to the respective control treatment. AMAs 3 and 4 reduced the FB1 absorption by 31.9 and 17.6%, respectively. In the in vitro test, AMAs 1 and 2 provided 98.4 and 86.3% of AFB1 adsorption, respectively, while AMA 3 and 4 provided 91.2 and 80.5% FB1 adsorption, respectively. The ex vivo model can be a useful tool in evaluating the effectiveness of antimycotoxin additives for AFB1 and FB1 in swine. However, the low FB1 uptake in jejunal explants highlights the need for the development of additional information to improve the method.","PeriodicalId":23844,"journal":{"name":"World Mycotoxin Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An investigation of different antimycotoxin additives in swine intestinal explants challenged with aflatoxin and fumonisin: ex vivo and in vitro models\",\"authors\":\"J. Alves Sarturi, C. Tonial Simões, C. Rosa da Silva, I. Fabris Laber, L.M. de Lima Schlösser, D.F. Sturza, C.A. Mallmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/18750796-20232854\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study aimed to develop an ex vivo model to evaluate the efficacy of antimycotoxin additives (AMAs) against aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) and fumonisin B1 (FB1) using intestinal explants of growing pigs. Four assays of two treatments with 12 replicates each (24 jejunal explants used per assay) were performed using an Ussing Chamber (UC) system: two assays to evaluate two AMAs for AFB1 and two assays to evaluate two AMAs for FB1. The difference between the two assays for both AFB1 and FB1 was the composition of the additive used. The treatments for AFB1 assays were control [Buffer solution (BS) + 1 mg/l AFB1] and AMA (BS + 1 mg/l AFB1 + 0.5% AMA 1 or 2). The treatments for FB1 assays were control (BS + 50 mg/l FB1) and AMA (BS + 50 mg/l FB1 + 0.5% AMA 3 or 4). The efficacy of the four additives was also tested in vitro. The AFB1 concentrations in the explants from AMAs 1 and 2 were lower () than in the control. AMAs 1 and 2 reduced the jejunal absorption of AFB1 by 83.4 and 72.9%, respectively. Explants from AMAs 3 and 4 had lower FB1 () concentration when compared to the respective control treatment. AMAs 3 and 4 reduced the FB1 absorption by 31.9 and 17.6%, respectively. In the in vitro test, AMAs 1 and 2 provided 98.4 and 86.3% of AFB1 adsorption, respectively, while AMA 3 and 4 provided 91.2 and 80.5% FB1 adsorption, respectively. The ex vivo model can be a useful tool in evaluating the effectiveness of antimycotoxin additives for AFB1 and FB1 in swine. However, the low FB1 uptake in jejunal explants highlights the need for the development of additional information to improve the method.\",\"PeriodicalId\":23844,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Mycotoxin Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Mycotoxin Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/18750796-20232854\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Mycotoxin Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18750796-20232854","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在开发一种体内外模型,利用生长猪的肠道外植体来评估抗霉菌毒素添加剂(AMA)对黄曲霉毒素 B1(AFB1)和伏马菌素 B1(FB1)的功效。使用乌星试验箱(UC)系统对两种处理进行了四次试验,每次试验有 12 个重复(每次试验使用 24 个空肠外植体):两次试验评估两种 AMA 对 AFB1 的作用,两次试验评估两种 AMA 对 FB1 的作用。AFB1 和 FB1 两种检测方法的不同之处在于所用添加剂的成分。AFB1 试验的处理为对照组 [缓冲溶液 (BS) + 1 毫克/升 AFB1] 和 AMA(BS + 1 毫克/升 AFB1 + 0.5% AMA 1 或 2)。FB1 试验的处理为对照(BS + 50 mg/l FB1)和 AMA(BS + 50 mg/l FB1 + 0.5% AMA 3 或 4)。四种添加剂的功效也在体外进行了测试。与对照组相比,AMA 1 和 2 的外植体中的 AFB1 浓度较低()。AMAs 1 和 2 可将空肠对 AFB1 的吸收率分别降低 83.4% 和 72.9%。与各自的对照处理相比,AMA 3 和 4 的外植体的 FB1()浓度较低。AMAs 3 和 AMAs 4 可使 FB1 的吸收率分别降低 31.9% 和 17.6%。在体外试验中,AMA 1 和 2 对 AFB1 的吸附率分别为 98.4% 和 86.3%,而 AMA 3 和 4 对 FB1 的吸附率分别为 91.2% 和 80.5%。该体内外模型是评估抗霉菌毒素添加剂对猪体内 AFB1 和 FB1 的有效性的有用工具。然而,空肠外植体对 FB1 的吸收率较低,这突出表明需要开发更多信息来改进该方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
An investigation of different antimycotoxin additives in swine intestinal explants challenged with aflatoxin and fumonisin: ex vivo and in vitro models
This study aimed to develop an ex vivo model to evaluate the efficacy of antimycotoxin additives (AMAs) against aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) and fumonisin B1 (FB1) using intestinal explants of growing pigs. Four assays of two treatments with 12 replicates each (24 jejunal explants used per assay) were performed using an Ussing Chamber (UC) system: two assays to evaluate two AMAs for AFB1 and two assays to evaluate two AMAs for FB1. The difference between the two assays for both AFB1 and FB1 was the composition of the additive used. The treatments for AFB1 assays were control [Buffer solution (BS) + 1 mg/l AFB1] and AMA (BS + 1 mg/l AFB1 + 0.5% AMA 1 or 2). The treatments for FB1 assays were control (BS + 50 mg/l FB1) and AMA (BS + 50 mg/l FB1 + 0.5% AMA 3 or 4). The efficacy of the four additives was also tested in vitro. The AFB1 concentrations in the explants from AMAs 1 and 2 were lower () than in the control. AMAs 1 and 2 reduced the jejunal absorption of AFB1 by 83.4 and 72.9%, respectively. Explants from AMAs 3 and 4 had lower FB1 () concentration when compared to the respective control treatment. AMAs 3 and 4 reduced the FB1 absorption by 31.9 and 17.6%, respectively. In the in vitro test, AMAs 1 and 2 provided 98.4 and 86.3% of AFB1 adsorption, respectively, while AMA 3 and 4 provided 91.2 and 80.5% FB1 adsorption, respectively. The ex vivo model can be a useful tool in evaluating the effectiveness of antimycotoxin additives for AFB1 and FB1 in swine. However, the low FB1 uptake in jejunal explants highlights the need for the development of additional information to improve the method.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
5.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: ''World Mycotoxin Journal'' is a peer-reviewed scientific journal with only one specific area of focus: the promotion of the science of mycotoxins. The journal contains original research papers and critical reviews in all areas dealing with mycotoxins, together with opinions, a calendar of forthcoming mycotoxin-related events and book reviews. The journal takes a multidisciplinary approach, and it focuses on a broad spectrum of issues, including toxicology, risk assessment, worldwide occurrence, modelling and prediction of toxin formation, genomics, molecular biology for control of mycotoxigenic fungi, pre-and post-harvest prevention and control, sampling, analytical methodology and quality assurance, food technology, economics and regulatory issues. ''World Mycotoxin Journal'' is intended to serve the needs of researchers and professionals from the scientific community and industry, as well as of policy makers and regulators.
期刊最新文献
Occurrence and associated agronomic factors of mycotoxin contamination in silage maize in the Great Lakes region of the United States Aflatoxins in the nut chains: strategies to reduce their impact on consumer’s health and economic losses Developments in analytical techniques for mycotoxin determination: an update for 2022-23 Aflatoxin contamination of household stored grains for smallholder farmers in Dodoma, Tanzania Aflatoxin contamination of household stored grains for smallholder farmers in Dodoma, Tanzania
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1