What are the best methods for in vitro evaluation of mycotoxin binders in poultry feeds?
In vitro evaluation is only a screening methodology, your results should be tested afterwards in vivo.
In http://en.engormix.com/MA-micotoxinas/ are some methodologies that can help.
As mentioned earlier its not 100% possible to detoxify but mycotoxin can be partially detoxified by low pH treatment or heat treatment. Also some microbes may be applied to detoxify mycotoxin but it depend on the samples. But there are several detection and quantification method. ELISA or HPLC can be used to determine the level of toxin present in feed.
At pH 4.5, the highest percentage binding of mycotoxins
was noticed for AF (90.68%), whereas the lowest
binding ability was recorded for OA (61.73%).
The best method for in vitro testing is the isotermal sorption analysis that is described in Grant, P.G., Phillips, T.D., 1998. Isothermal adsorption of aflatoxin B1 on HSCAS clay. J. Ag. Food Chem. 46, 599–605. I agree with other replies in here that recomend using different pH levels and simulated gastric conditions.
It is better to go for detoxifiers than adsorbers(like clays). Developing the detoxifieing organisms, going for nano binders.
Sohail Khan · POULTRY RESEARCH INSTITUTE, RAWALPINDI, PAKISTAN
At pH 4.5, the highest percentage binding of mycotoxins
was noticed for AF (90.68%), whereas the lowest
binding ability was recorded for OA (61.73%).
So would this have the implications in humans and was there a level noticed for less binding of the mycotoxins?
I agree with Alicia Marroquin that the best method for in vitro testing is the isothermal sroption analysis, however this analysis only shown us the maximum asoption that the binder can absorb. For screening objective the binders, the best way that in vitro analysis shoud do with the simulated gastro-intestinal solutions (diferent pH).
Herbal Binder (HB) was used.The composition of binder was as
follows:
i.) Minerals (extra purified clay containing diatomaceous earth
mineral) (15%).
ii.) Antioxidants (Curcuminoids extracted from Turmeric) (10%).
iii.) Enzymes (Epoxidase and Esterase) (75%).
Devreese M, Osselaere A, Goossens J, Vandenbroucke V, De Baere S, Eeckhout M, De Backer P, Croubels S.
Sourcea
New bolus models for in vivo efficacy testing of mycotoxin-detoxifying agents in relation to EFSA guidelines, assessed using deoxynivalenol in broiler chickens.
Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess. 2012 Mar 1. [Epub ahead of print]
Vizcarra-Olvera JE, Astiazarán-García H, Burgos-Hernández A, Parra-Vergara NV, Cinco-Moroyoqui FJ, Sánchez-Mariñez RI, Quintana-Obregón EA, Cortez-Rocha MO.
Evaluation of Pathological Effects in Broilers During Fumonisins and Clays Exposure.
Mycopathologia. 2012 Mar 7. [Epub ahead of print]
The best method would depend on who you are asking, therefore "the best" method lies in the heart of the answering researcher.
Another way of answering your question is by asking another question.
What would “the best” in vitro testing reveal compared to in vivo testing?
Update on the previously suggested paper of “New bolus models for in vivo efficacy testing of mycotoxin-detoxifying agents in relation to EFSA guidelines, assessed using deoxynivalenol in broiler chickens” is Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess. 2012;29(7):1101-7. doi: 10.1080/19440049.2012.671788.
I read the really interesting discussion about this topic but I have a problem. What is the relevance of in vitro testing of a mycotoxin binder? According to my group experiences the results of in vitro binding capacity, even it was carried out with the most accurate method has only very low correlation with in vivo results.
I will share the following information. I know that in vitro is not the best way to predict effectiveness but under certain circumstances can be useful. For instance, there was a study in dairy cows where 8 products intended to reduce AF exposure were used. We did isotherms on the products and 3 of them showed pretty good trends in vitro. These 3 products also had the best performance in vivo. However there was one product that had good performance in vivo and not in vitro. That product was a mixture of different plants and minerals (or something like that). I believe as well as other researchers too, that if the products tested consist of specific minerals isotherms can be useful to predict in vivo efficacy. However, if they are mixtures of organic materials etc. isotherms are not reliable. Let me know if somebody is interested in the isotherms plot. Data of the in vivo study can be found in a dissertation by Stroud et al. 2006. http://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/ir/bitstream/1840.16/2007/1/etd.pdf
Dear friends
I have few points regading selection of detoxification process for mycotoxins:
1. We may have some promising results by using different herbal extracts (references available on net) to inhibit the mycotoxin producing fungi on the food and feed materials but major issue is its applcaction at industrial or mass level.
2. We have to use combination of mycotoxn binders because we do not find one mycotoxin binders effective for all mycotoxins.
3. Enzymes used for biotransformation of mycotoxins have not been well commercialized.
So we do not have any effective mechanism to detoxify mycotoxins from the contaminated foods.
In my view we have to work more on detoxifying agents and improved agricultural practices for cultivation and storage systems.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Medicine
- Disease
- Infectious Diseases