Next Article in Journal
Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor, a Novel Receptor for Vegetative Insecticidal Protein Vip3Aa
Previous Article in Journal
Transcriptomic Characterization of the South American Freshwater Stingray Potamotrygon motoro Venom Apparatus
Previous Article in Special Issue
Current Status and Future Opportunities of Omics Tools in Mycotoxin Research
Open AccessCommunication

Biomarker of Aflatoxin Ingestion: 1H NMR-Based Plasma Metabolomics of Dairy Cows Fed Aflatoxin B1 with or without Sequestering Agents

1
College of Agriculture, Communities, and the Environment, Kentucky State University, Frankfort, KY 40601, USA
2
Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
3
Institute of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Federal University of Mato Grosso, Sinop, MT 78557-267, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Toxins 2018, 10(12), 545; https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins10120545
Received: 15 November 2018 / Revised: 7 December 2018 / Accepted: 11 December 2018 / Published: 18 December 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Metabolomics in Mycotoxin Research)

Abstract

The study applied 1H NMR-based plasma metabolomics to identify candidate biomarkers of aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) ingestion in dairy cows fed no sequestering agents and evaluate the effect of supplementing clay and/or a Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product (SCFP) on such biomarkers. Eight lactating cows were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatments in a balanced 4 × 4 Latin square design with 2 squares. Treatments were: control, toxin (T; 1725 µg AFB1/head/day), T with clay (CL; 200 g/head/day), and CL with SCFP (CL + SCFP; 35 g of SCFP/head/day). Cows in T, CL, and CL + SCFP were dosed with AFB1 from d 26 to 30. The sequestering agents were top-dressed from d 1 to 33. On d 30 of each period, 15 mL of blood was taken from the coccygeal vessels and plasma samples were prepared by centrifugation. Compared to the control, T decreased plasma concentrations of alanine, acetic acid, leucine, arginine and valine. In contrast, T increased plasma ethanol concentration 3.56-fold compared to control. Treatment with CL tended to reduce sarcosine concentration, whereas treatment with CL + SCFP increased concentrations of mannose and 12 amino acids. Based on size of the area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic and fold change (FC) analyses, ethanol was the most significantly altered metabolite in T (AUC = 0.88; FC = 3.56); hence, it was chosen as the candidate biomarker of aflatoxin ingestion in dairy cows fed no sequestering agent.
Keywords: aflatoxin; dairy cow; metabolomics; plasma aflatoxin; dairy cow; metabolomics; plasma

1. Introduction

Aflatoxins are a type of mycotoxins produced by strains of Aspergillus flavus, Aspergillus parasiticus, and Aspergillus nominus on growing forages or stored feeds [1]. Aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) is the most widely studied and potent carcinogen among all aflatoxins [2]. Up to 6% of its metabolite can be transferred into milk as aflatoxin M1 [3]. Aflatoxin ingestion by cows and the resultant aflatoxicosis cause effects such as reduced cow health and performance, impaired liver function, and increased susceptibility to diseases [4]. Several approaches, notably the use of clay-based sequestering agents and Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product (SCFP), have been documented to reduce the transfer of aflatoxin into the milk of dairy cows [5,6]. Our recent study revealed that supplementation of diet with both SCFP and clay products was more effective than clay alone at maintaining milk production during aflatoxin challenge [7]. Despite the efficacy of these sequestering agents at reducing the milk aflatoxin concentration, the plasma metabolome of aflatoxin-challenged dairy cows has not been described. Such information is urgently needed to identify biomarkers of aflatoxin ingestion that may allow early detection and mitigation of aflatoxicosis in livestock due to the variable clinical signs of the syndrome that resemble those of other diseases [8]. Currently, diagnosis of aflatoxin ingestion is based on feed mycotoxin analysis, which may be inaccurate considering difficulty in obtaining representative feed sample because of uneven distribution of toxin within the feed [9]. Therefore, studies aiming at identifying biomarkers of aflatoxicosis in ruminants are urgently needed as a similar approach has been successfully applied to determine aflatoxin exposure in humans [10].
Metabolomics is the study of level of small endogenous molecules or metabolites [11]. High-resolution proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H NMR)-based metabolomics can identify and quantify many metabolites, such as amino acids, sugars, alcohols, organic acids, amines, tricarboxylic acid cycle intermediates, and short chain fatty acids in biofluids [12]. Though 1H NMR has lower sensitivity than mass spectrometry-based techniques, it provides the most reliable quantitative information of metabolites [13]. In addition, the high analytical reproducibility is a significant advantage of 1H NMR over mass spectrometry-based methods, such as gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (LC-MS) [14,15]. Sun et al. [16] demonstrated the utility of 1H NMR-based plasma metabolomics for the detection of ketosis in dairy cows. Therefore, the objectives of this study are to use 1H NMR-based plasma metabolomics (1) to identify potential biomarker(s) of aflatoxin ingestion in dairy cows fed no sequestering agents and (2) to assess the effects of clay and/or SCFP-based sequestering agents on the plasma metabolome of dairy cows challenged with AFB1.

2. Results and Discussion

Detailed results on treatment effects on dairy cow performance and milk aflatoxin concentration were reported in our companion paper [7]. Briefly, CL and CL + SCFP reduced (p < 0.01) transfer of dietary AFB1 into milk. Dietary supplementation with CL + SCFP tended (p < 0.10) to increase the milk yield of the cows compared with T.
A total number of 45 metabolites were identified and quantified (Table S1). The scores plot of the partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA; Figure 1) revealed good separations between the control group and each of T, CL, and CL + SCFP groups, indicating that dietary treatment altered the plasma metabolome relative to the control. The corresponding loading plots are presented in Figure S1. The respective p values for 2000 permutation were 0.09, 0.07, and 0.02, indicating the validity of the PLS-DA models.
Table 1 provides the results of the metabolites that were affected by dietary treatment. Compared to the control, T diet decreased (p < 0.05) plasma concentrations of acetic acid, alanine and leucine, tended to decrease (p < 0.10) that of arginine and valine, and increased (p = 0.01) plasma ethanol concentration.
It is well documented that AFB1 impairs animal and human health by interfering with substrates and enzymes needed for initiation and translation in protein synthesis and/or form adducts with DNA, RNA and proteins [17,18]. Leucine and valine have been shown to be major stimulators of protein synthesis through the mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) signaling cascade, a major regulator of protein synthesis at the point of translation initiation [19]. A master role of mTOR in the regulation of protein synthesis in all tissues of mammals, including the mammary gland, has been well defined [20]. This probably explains the reason for the suppressed immune system of animals exposed to aflatoxins [21] because proteins make up part of antibodies, interferon and complement proteins that support immune system cells. The fact that milk protein concentration of the cows was not affected by dietary aflatoxin, as shown in our companion paper [7], is probably because the glucose level, which drives milk protein synthesis [22], and lysine, methionine, and histidine, largely considered the limiting amino acids for the synthesis of protein in the mammary glands [23], were not affected by AFB1.
The results of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis revealed that plasma acetic acid, arginine, ethanol, alanine, methylhistidine, and proline were candidate biomarkers of aflatoxin ingestion in dairy cows fed no sequestering agents according to AUC > 0.80 (Table 2). Based on the results of AUC > 0.80 and FC analyses, ethanol was found to be the most significantly altered metabolite (AUC = 0.88; FC = 3.56) in the dataset and was chosen as the most important candidate biomarker of aflatoxin ingestion in this study.
Dairy cows without metabolic stress can metabolize alcohols present in feeds, particularly silage-based feeds, because the liver has a high affinity for alcohol and will primarily metabolize alcohols via alcohol and aldehyde dehydrogenases to acetate [24]. Exposure to aflatoxins in diets of ruminants has been reported to cause impaired liver function [25]. Though effects of AFB1 on liver alcohol dehydrogenase have not been reported in dairy cows, AFB1 has been shown to cause downregulation of genes from alcohol and aldehyde dehydrogenase groups in domesticated and wild turkey [26]. In humans, dysregulation of alcohol dehydrogenase activity has been shown to be associated with a risk of liver dysfunction and cancer [27]. Increased alcohol concentration and decreased acetate concentration in plasma of cows fed AFB1 probably suggest reduced activity of alcohol dehydrogenase in the liver, which indicates an impaired liver function. More studies are needed to confirm the effects of AFB1 on enzymes (alcohol and aldehyde dehydrogenases) responsible for alcohol metabolism in the liver of dairy cows. It is expected that biomarkers of aflatoxin ingestion in livestock are likely to differ, depending on the cattle feeds. Future studies with larger animal groups, as well as integration of NMR and mass-spectrometry techniques that can offer a powerful methodology for metabolomics studies, are needed to identify biomarkers of aflatoxin ingestion in livestock across different feeding regimens.
Dietary treatment with CL did not affect any of the plasma metabolites, except plasma sarcosine, which was reduced (p = 0.07) compared to control diet. This suggests that clay supplementation was effective at preventing the inhibitory effects of AFB1 on protein synthesis and liver function. The role of sarcosine, an intermediate in the conversion of choline to glycine [28], on the health status of dairy cows has not been described; however, it was reported to promote neuroprotection in rats [29]. Reduced level of serum sarcosine was observed in dairy cows with foot rot [30] and in dairy cows with short productive life due to various health and fertility problems such as metabolic disorders, inflammatory production diseases, infertility, and low conception rates [31]. However, the extent of sarcosine reduction with CL in this study is small (1.83 vs. 1.50 µM) and may not be of biological relevance.
Dietary treatment with CL + SCFP increased (p < 0.05) or tended to increase (p < 0.10) the plasma concentrations of mannose, essential amino acids, such as threonine, valine, lysine, arginine, leucine, isoleucine, and phenylalanine, and non-essential amino acids, such as l-glutamic acid, l-alanine, proline, serine, and aspartic acid. The increased plasma amino acid and mannose concentration probably reflects the effect of SCFP alone because similar results were not observed with CL treatment. These results explain the results of our companion paper [7], which showed that CL + SCFP was more effective than CL alone at increasing the milk and milk protein production of cows fed the toxin. In support of this study, Leicester et al. [32] observed increased plasma concentration of amino acids, such as threonine, valine, proline, and serine of dairy cows fed a yeast additive. The concentration of amino acid in the plasma is a representation of intestinally-absorbed amino acid [33]. Several studies have reported increased duodenal flow of amino acids in cows fed yeast additive [32,34]. The increase in duodenal amino acid is attributable to increased flow of microbial protein from the rumen and improved nutrient absorption efficiency because SCFP has been shown to increase rumen bacterial number [35] and feed efficiency [36], and improve gut health in the small intestine [32].
In the cell wall of S. cerevisiae, mannan oligosaccharides (MOS) are present in complex molecules that are linked to a protein moiety [37]. MOS contains d-mannose, which reduces the risk of pathogen colonization in the gut by binding to pathogens, such as E. coli and Salmonella spp., via type-1-fimbriae [38]. d-mannose is non-fermentable by some groups of bacteria in the rumen and is resistant to enzymatic activity in the gut [39]. This explains the increased plasma mannose concentration in cows fed CL + SCFP. Mannose plays an important role in the mannosylation of proteins such as mannose-binding lectin, which plays a critical role in innate immune system function [40]. Mannose-binding protein is one of the soluble pattern recognition molecules that activate innate immune cells [41]. This supports the immunostimulatory effects of SCFP against toxins and stress reported by several studies [42,43]; however, no effect on immune status was observed in our companion study, probably because the level of AFB1 (1725 µg/cow) and duration of the challenge (5 d) were not adequate to suppress the immune status of the cow [7].
In conclusion, dosing AFB1 altered the plasma metabolomic profile of lactating Holstein dairy cows by decreasing plasma concentrations of alanine, leucine, arginine, acetic acid and increasing concentration of ethanol. Plasma ethanol concentration was found to be 3.56-fold higher in aflatoxin-challenged cows compared to the control, and was chosen to be a candidate biomarker of aflatoxin ingestion in dairy cows under the experimental conditions of the present study. Sodium bentonite clay prevented the adverse effects of AFB1 on the metabolic status of the cows and CL + SCFP improved the metabolic status of the aflatoxin-challenged cows compared to the control cows.

3. Materials and Methods

The animal trial protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of University of Florida (IACUC Protocol #: 201509099, Date of approval: 13 January 2016).

3.1. Animals, Housing, and Feeding

The experiment was part of a larger study that evaluated the effect of supplementing clay with or without a SCFP on the performance and health of dairy cows challenged with AFB1. Detailed information about cows and feeding has been reported in our companion paper [7]. Briefly, eight lactating multiparous Holstein cows in early lactation (64 ± 11 days in milk) were stratified by parity and milk production and randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatment sequences arranged in a balanced 4 × 4 Latin square design with 2 replicate squares, four 33-d periods, and a 5-d washout interval between periods. Dietary treatments were (1) control (basal diet without additives), (2) toxin (T; oral dose of 1725 µg of AFB1/head per day), (3) toxin with bentonite clay (CL; 200 g/head per day; Astra-Ben-20, Prince Agri Products Inc., Quincy, IL, USA), and (4) CL plus SCFP (CL + SCFP; 35 g of SCFP/head per day; Diamond V, Cedar Rapids, IA, USA). The basal diet was fed as a total mixed ration (TMR) containing, on a dry matter (DM) basis, 36.1% corn silage, 8.3% alfalfa hay and 55.6% concentrate mix. The TMR was formulated to meet or exceed nutrient requirements of lactating dairy cows producing at least 30 kg/d of milk [44] with CPM-Dairy version 3.0.10 software (www.cpmdairy.net).
Cows in treatments T, CL, and CL + SCFP were orally dosed with 1725 µg of AFB1/head per day from day 26 to 30 before the morning feeding to give a dietary concentration of 75 µg/kg of DM based on estimated daily DMI of 23 kg/d. The sequestering agents were top-dressed on the respective TMR from day 1 to 33 of each period. Aflatoxin B1, obtained from the University of Missouri Diagnostic Laboratory (Columbia, MO, USA), was mixed with 10 g of ground corn and 4 mL of molasses and then weighed into gelatin capsules before orally dosing each cow daily. Control cows were provided with similar quantities of ground corn and molasses without AFB1. A 5-d washout period was imposed after each withdrawal period to minimize carryover of treatment effects between periods.
Subsamples of the basal diet and ground corn used in this study were initially analyzed for AFB1, ochratoxin, zearalenone, and deoxynivalenol using HPLC at the University of Missouri Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory. These mycotoxins were below lower detection limits (5 µg/kg for aflatoxins; 0.5 mg/kg for ochratoxin, zearalenone, and deoxynivalenol).

3.2. Blood Sample Collection

On day 30 of each experimental period, 15 mL of blood was taken from the coccygeal vessels into vacutainer tubes containing sodium heparin anticoagulant. Plasma samples were immediately prepared by centrifugation at 2500× g for 20 min at 4 °C, and stored at −20 °C until NMR analysis was done.

3.3. Sample Preparation and NMR Spectroscopy

A deproteinization step, involving ultra-filtration, previously described by Psychogios et al. [45], was used to remove plasma lipoproteins and proteins with large molecular weight, which might affect the identification of the small molecular weight metabolites. Prior to filtration, 3 kDa cut-off centrifugal filter units (Amicon Microcon YM-3, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) were rinsed five times each with 0.5 mL of H2O and centrifuged (10,000 rpm for 10 min) to remove residual glycerol bound to the filter membranes. Aliquots of each plasma sample were then transferred into the centrifuge filter devices and spun (10,000 rpm for 20 min) to remove macromolecules (primarily protein and lipoproteins) from the sample. The subsequent filtrates were collected and the volumes were recorded. Subsequently, 160 µL of the sample was mixed with 40 µL of a standard buffer solution (54% D2O:46% 250 mM KH2PO4, pH 7.0). The sample (200 µL) was then transferred to a 3 mm SampleJet NMR tube for subsequent spectral analysis. All 1H-NMR spectra were collected on a 700 MHz Avance III (Bruker, Billerica, MA, USA) spectrometer equipped with a 5 mm HCN Z-gradient pulsed-field gradient cryoprobe. The 1H-NMR spectra were acquired at 25 °C using the first transient of the nuclear overhauser effect spectroscopy (NOESY) pre-saturation pulse sequence, chosen for its high degree of quantitative accuracy [46]. All free induction decays were zero-filled to 250 K data points. The singlet produced by the 4,4-dimethyl-4-silapentane-1-sulfonic acid (DSS) methyl groups was used as an internal standard for chemical shift referencing (set to 0 ppm). The 1H NMR spectra were processed and analyzed using a Bayesil automated analysis software package, which allows for qualitative and quantitative analysis of an NMR spectrum by automatically and semi-automatically fitting spectral signatures from an internal database to the spectrum using a custom metabolite library [47]. Each spectrum was further inspected by an NMR spectroscopist to minimize compound misidentification and misquantification.

3.4. Data and Statistical Analysis

The metabolite data were imported into MetaboAnalyst 4.0 (https://www.metaboanalyst.ca) [48] for multivariate analysis. Data were first log-transformed and pareto-scaled [49]. Partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA), a tool used to optimize separation between different groups of samples [50], was used to visualize the differences between the control group and each of T, CL, and CL + SCFP groups. A permutation test (n = 2000) was performed to establish whether the observed discriminations between the groups were valid [47].
The metabolite data were subjected to statistical analysis using the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). The model used for the analysis included the fixed effects of treatment, experimental period, interaction of treatment and experimental period, random effects of cow, square, interaction of treatment and square, and interaction of experimental period and square, respectively. Denominator degrees of freedom were estimated by the Kenward-Roger option in the MODEL statement. Preplanned nonorthogonal contrasts that were examined to compare means included the following: control vs. T, control vs. CL, and control vs. CL + SCFP. Significance was declared at p ≤ 0.05, and tendencies to significance were declared at 0.05 < p ≤ 0.10.
Biomarker analysis based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves was performed for control and T groups using MetaboAnalyst 4.0 to identify biomarker candidates of aflatoxin ingestion in dairy cows fed no sequestering agents. Area under the curve (AUC) from ROC curve, a numerical value that indicates the relationship between sensitivity and specificity for a given diagnostic test [51], and fold change (FC) analysis (mean concentration of metabolite in T group/mean concentration of metabolite in C group) were the metrics used to interpret the performance of different biomarkers. An AUC close to 1 indicates an effective sensitivity and specificity [51]. Therefore, the most important biomarker candidate was selected on the basis of FC > 1.2 and AUC greater than 0.8 [52].

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6651/10/12/545/s1, Table S1: The concentration of all identified metabolites (±SD), Figure S1: Loading plots of the partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) model for Control and Toxin (T) groups (A), Control and Clay (CL) groups (B), and Control and CL + Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product (SCFP) groups (C).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.O. and A.A.; investigation, Y.J., I.O., D.V., A.O., J.A.; writing—original draft preparation, I.O., J.A.; writing—review and editing, I.O., A.A., D.V., Y.J.; supervision, I.O., A.A.

Funding

We gratefully acknowledge Diamond V Inc. (Cedar Rapids, IA) for funding the animal experiment. Cost of plasma metabolomics analysis was supported by funds from the US Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture Evans-Allen project.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the staff of the University of Florida (Gainesville) dairy unit for their assistance with the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bennett, J.W.; Klich, M. Mycotoxins. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2003, 16, 497–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  2. Squire, R.A. Ranking animal carcinogens: A proposed regulatory approach. Science 1981, 214, 877–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Upadhaya, S.D.; Park, M.A.; Ha, J.K. Mycotoxins and their biotransformation in the rumen: A review. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2010, 23, 1250–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Fink-Gremmels, J. Mycotoxins in cattle feeds and carry-over to dairy milk: A review. Food Addit. Contam. Part A Chem. Anal. Control Expo. Risk Assess. 2008, 25, 172–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  5. Kutz, R.E.; Sampson, J.D.; Pompeu, L.B.; Ledoux, D.R.; Spain, J.N.; Vazquez-Anon, M.; Rottinghaus, G.E. Efficacy of Solis, NovasilPlus, and MTB-100 to reduce aflatoxin M1 levels in milk of early to mid-lactation dairy cows fed aflatoxin B1. J. Dairy Sci. 2009, 92, 3959–3963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Queiroz, O.C.M.; Han, J.H.; Staples, C.R.; Adesogan, A.T. Effect of adding a mycotoxin-sequestering agent on milk aflatoxin M1 concentration and the performance and immune response of dairy cattle fed an aflatoxin B1-contaminated diet. J. Dairy Sci. 2012, 95, 5901–5908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Jiang, Y.; Ogunade, I.M.; Kim, D.H.; Li, X.; Pech-Cervantes, A.A.; Arriola, K.G.; Oliveira, A.S.; Driver, J.P.; Ferraretto, L.F.; Staples, C.R.; et al. Effect of sequestering agents based on a Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product and clay on the health and performance of lactating dairy cows challenged with dietary aflatoxin B1. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 3008–3020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Dhanasekaran, D.; Shanmugapriya, S.; Thajuddin, N.; Panneerselvam, A. Aflatoxins and aflatoxicosis in human and animals. In Aflatoxins—Biochemistry and Molecular Biology; Guevara-Gonzalez, R.G., Ed.; InTech: Houston, TX, USA, 2011; pp. 221–254. [Google Scholar]
  9. Whitaker, T.B.; Slate, A.; Doko, B.; Maestroni, B.; Cannavan, A. Sampling Procedures to Detect Mycotoxins in Agricultural Commodities; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  10. Wild, C.P.; Turner, P.C. The toxicology of aflatoxins as a basis for public health decisions. Mutagenesis 2002, 17, 471–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  11. Nicholson, J.K.; Lindon, J.C.; Holmes, E. Metabonomics: Understanding the metabolic responses of living systems to pathophysiological stimuli via multivariate statistical analysis of biological NMR spectroscopic data. Xenobiotica 1999, 29, 1181–1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Maher, A.D.; Rochfort, S.J. Applications of NMR in dairy research. Metabolites 2014, 4, 131–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Kim, H.K.; Choi, Y.H.; Verpoorte, R. NMR-based plant metabolomics: Where do we stand, where do we go? Trends Biotechnol. 2011, 29, 267–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Tikunov, A.P.; Johnson, C.B.; Lee, H.; Stoskopf, M.K.; Macdonald, J.M. Metabolomic investigations of American oysters Using 1H-NMR spectroscopy. Mar. Drugs 2010, 8, 2578–2596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Emwas, A.H. The strengths and weaknesses of NMR spectroscopy and mass spectrometry with particular focus on metabolomics research. Metabonomics Methods Protoc. 2015, 1277, 161–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sun, L.W.; Zhang, H.Y.; Wu, L.; Shu, S.; Xia, C.; Xu, C.; Zheng, J.S. 1H-Nuclear magnetic resonance-based plasma metabolic profiling of dairy cows with clinical and subclinical ketosis. J. Dairy Sci. 2014, 97, 1552–1562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Sporn, M.B.; Dingman, C.W.; Phelps, H.L.; Wogan, G.N. Aflatoxin B1: Binding to DNA in vitro and alteration of RNA metabolism in vivo. Science 1966, 151, 1539–1541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Garvican, L.; Cajone, F.; Rees, K.R. The mechanism of action of aflatoxin B1 on protein synthesis; Observations on malignant, viral transformed and untransformed cells in culture. Chem.-Biol. Interact. 1973, 7, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Doelman, J.; Kim, J.J.M.; Carson, M.; Metcalf, J.A.; Cant, J.P. Branched chain amino acid and lysine deficiencies exert different effects on mammary translational regulation. J. Dairy Sci. 2015, 98, 7846–7855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Wang, X.; Proud, C.G. The mTOR pathway in the control of protein synthesis. Physiology 2006, 21, 362–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Jones, F.T.; Genter, M.B.; Hagler, W.M.; Hansen, J.A.; Mowrey, B.A.; Poore, M.H.; Whitlow, L.W. Understanding and Coping with Effects of Mycotoxins in Livestock Feed and Forage; North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service: Winston-Salem, NC, USA, 1994; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  22. Toerien, C.A.; Trout, D.R.; Cant, J.P. Nutritional stimulation of milk protein yield of cows is associated with changes in phosphorylation of mammary eukaryotic initiation factor 2 and ribosomal s6 kinase1. J. Nutr. 2010, 140, 285–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Appuhamy, J.A.; Knapp, J.R.; Becvar, O.; Escobar, J.; Hanigan, M.D. Effects of jugular-infused lysine, methionine, and branched-chain amino acids on milk protein synthesis in high-producing dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 94, 1952–1960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Kristensen, N.B.; Storm, A.; Raun, B.M.L.; Røjen, B.A.; Harmon, D.L. Metabolism of silage alcohols in lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2007, 90, 1364–1377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Battacone, G.; Nudda, A.; Cannas, A.; Borlino, A.C.; Bomboi, G.; Pulina, G. Excretion of aflatoxin M1 in milk of dairy ewes treated with different doses of aflatoxin B1. J. Dairy Sci. 2003, 86, 2667–2675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Reed, K.M.; Mendoza, K.M.; Abrahante, J.E.; Coulombe, R.A. Comparative Response of the Hepatic Transcriptomes of Domesticated and Wild Turkey to Aflatoxin B1. Toxins 2018, 10, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Shang, L.; Zhu, G.; Su, H.; Chen, B.; Ye, X.; Chen, X.; Xiao, K.; Li, L.; Peng, M.; Peng, T. Identification of alcohol dehydrogenase as a potential prognostic marker in HBV-related hepatocellular carcinoma. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Med. 2017, 10, 4457–4472. [Google Scholar]
  28. Allen, R.H.; Stabler, S.P.; Lindenbaum, J. Serum betaine, N,N-dimethylglycine and N-methylglycine levels in patients with cobalamin and folate deficiency and related inborn errors of metabolism. Metabolism 1993, 42, 1448–1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pinto, M.C.; Simao, F.; da Costa, F.L.; Rosa, D.V.; de Paiva, M.J.; Resende, R.R.; Romano-Silva, M.A.; Gomez, M.V.; Gomez, R.S. Sarcosine preconditioning induces ischemic tolerance against global cerebral ischemia. Neuroscience 2014, 271, 160–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Zheng, J.; Sun, L.; Shu, S.; Zhu, K.; Xu, C.; Wang, J.; Wang, H. Nuclear magnetic resonance-based serum metabolic profiling of dairy cows with footrot. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2016, 78, 1421–1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  31. Huber, K.; Dänicke, S.; Rehage, J.; Sauerwein, H.; Otto, W.; Rolle-Kampczyk, U.; von Bergen, M.M. Metabotypes with properly functioning mitochondria and anti-inflammation predict extended productive life span in dairy cows. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 24642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  32. Leicester, H.C.W.; Robinson, P.H.; Erasmus, L.J. Effects of two yeast based direct fed microbials on performance of high producing dairy cows. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2016, 215, 58–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  33. Swanepoel, N.; Robinson, P.H.; Erasmus, L.J. Rumen microbial protein flow and plasma amino acid concentrations in early lactation multiparity Holstein cows fed commercial rations, and some relationships with dietary nutrients. Livest. Sci. 2016, 190, 58–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  34. Erasmus, L.J.; Botha, P.M.; Kistner, A. Effect of yeast culture supplement on production, rumen fermentation, and duodenal nitrogen flow in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 1992, 75, 3056–3065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Robinson, P.H. Yeast Products for Growing and Lactating Ruminants: A Literature Summary of Impacts on Rumen Fermentation and Performance. 2010. Available online: https://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk446/files/inline-files/Web200901.pdf (accessed on 16 October 2018).
  36. Jiang, Y.; Ogunade, I.M.; Arriola, K.G.; Qi, M.; Vyas, D.; Staples, C.R.; Adesogan, A.T. Effects of the dose and viability of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. 2. Ruminal fermentation, performance of lactating dairy cows, and correlations between ruminal bacteria abundance and performance measures. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 8102–8118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Spring, P.; Wenk, C.; Connolly, A.; Kiers, A. A review of 733 published trials in Bio-Mos®, a mannan oligosaccharide, and Actigen®, a second generation mannose rich fraction, on farm and companion animals. J. Appl. Anim. Nutr. 2015, 3, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kelly, D.; Begbie, R.; King, T.P. Nutritional influences on interactions between bacteria and the small intestinal mucosa. Nutr. Res. Rev. 1994, 7, 233–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Da Silva, J.T.; Bittar, C.M.; Ferreira, L.S. Evaluation of mannan-oligosaccharides offered in milk replacers or calf starters and their effect on performance and rumen development of dairy calves. R. Bras. Zootec. 2012, 41, 746–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  40. Kuipers, S.; Aerts, P.C.; van Dijk, H. Differential microorganism-induced mannose-binding lectin activation. FEMS Immunol. Med. Microbiol. 2003, 36, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  41. Takahashi, K. Mannose-binding lectin and the balance between immune protection and complication. Expert Rev. Anti. Infect. Ther. 2011, 9, 1179–1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  42. Duff, G.C.; Galyean, M.L. Board-invited review: Recent advances in management of highly stressed, newly received feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 2007, 85, 823–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Burdick Sanchez, N.C.; Young, T.R.; Carroll, J.A.; Corley, J.R.; Rathmann, R.J.; Johnson, B.J. Yeast cell wall supplementation alters the metabolic responses of crossbred heifers to an endotoxin challenge. Innate Immun. 2014, 20, 104–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. NRC. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, 7th rev. ed.; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  45. Psychogios, N.; Hau, D.D.; Peng, J.; Guo, A.C.; Mandal, R.; Bouatra, S.; Sinelnikov, I.; Krishnamurthy, R.; Eisner, R.; Gautam, B.; et al. The human serum metabolome. PLoS ONE. 2011, 6, e16957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Saude, E.J.; Slupksy, C.M.; Sykes, B.D. Optimization of NMR analysis of biological fluids for quantitative accuracy. Metabolomics 2006, 2, 113–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ravanbakhsh, S.; Liu, P.; Bjorndahl, T.C.; Mandal, R.; Grant, J.R.; Wilson, M.; Eisner, R.; Sinelnikov, I.; Hu, X.; Luchinat, C.; et al. Accurate, fully-automated NMR spectral profiling for metabolomics. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0124219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Xia, J.; Wishart, D.S. Using metaboAnalyst 3.0 for comprehensive metabolomics data analysis. Curr. Prot. Bioinform. 2016, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Graham, S.F.; Kumar, P.K.; Bjorndahl, T.; Han, B.; Yilmaz, A.; Sherman, E.; Bahado-Singh, R.O.; Wishart, D.; Mann, D.; Green, B.D. Metabolic signatures of Huntington’s disease (HD): 1H NMR analysis of the polar metabolome in post-mortem human brain. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2016, 1862, 1675–1684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Gromski, P.S.; Muhamadali, H.; Ellis, D.I.; Xu, Y.; Correa, E.; Turner, M.L.; Goodacre, R. A tutorial review: Metabolomics and partial least squares-discriminant analysis—A marriage of convenience or a shotgun wedding. Anal. Chim. Acta 2015, 879, 10–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Liang, Q.; Liu, H.; Wang, C.; Li, B. Phenotypic characterization analysis of human hepatocarcinoma by urine metabolomics approach. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 19763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Kalantari, S.; Nafar, M.; Samavat, S.; Parvin, M. NMR-based metabolomics exploring urinary biomarkers correlated with proteinuria in focal segmental glomerulosclerosis: A pilot study: Urine metabolomics based on NMR. Magn. Reson. Chem. 2017, 54, 821–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Partial least squares-discriminant analysis showing 2 clusters for Control and Toxin (T) groups (A), Control and Clay (CL) groups (B), and Control and CL + Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product (SCFP) groups (C). Percentages of variance explained by each component are presented in parentheses on the axes.
Figure 1. Partial least squares-discriminant analysis showing 2 clusters for Control and Toxin (T) groups (A), Control and Clay (CL) groups (B), and Control and CL + Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product (SCFP) groups (C). Percentages of variance explained by each component are presented in parentheses on the axes.
Toxins 10 00545 g001
Table 1. The concentrations (µM) of plasma metabolites affected by dietary treatment in dairy cows challenged with aflatoxin B1 with or without clay and SCFP 1-based sequestering agents.
Table 1. The concentrations (µM) of plasma metabolites affected by dietary treatment in dairy cows challenged with aflatoxin B1 with or without clay and SCFP 1-based sequestering agents.
ItemTreatment 2SEMControl vs. TControl vs. CLControl vs. CL + SCFP
ControlTCLCL + SCFP
l-Glutamic acid29527127437417.20.350.410.01
l-Alanine39531037059023.10.010.380.01
l-Leucine29722929738714.70.010.990.01
l-Valine38234737546819.60.060.780.01
l-Proline1531331542059.670.150.910.01
l-Threonine14312613318810.20.270.510.01
l-Isoleucine1351311371729.090.710.920.01
l-Serine14816014717910.50.360.940.03
l-Arginine1289613115912.70.070.860.09
l-Phenylalanine72.171.168.485.54.460.890.570.05
d-mannose68.866.966.678.82.870.650.610.02
l-Aspartic acid23.526.929.543.54.780.620.390.01
Acetic acid1348973125813401030.020.540.95
Sarcosine1.831.741.501.950.120.590.070.45
Ethanol6.8119.96.385.199.290.010.850.26
l-Lysine16518017120814.40.500.810.05
1Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product–based sequestering agent (Diamond V, Cedar Rapids, IA, USA). 2 T = control diet + AFB1 (1725 μg/d); CL = T + 200 g/d of sodium bentonite clay; CL + SCFP = CL + 35 g/d of Saccharomyces cerevisiae fermentation product.
Table 2. Identification of candidate biomarkers of aflatoxin ingestion in dairy cows fed no sequestering agents.
Table 2. Identification of candidate biomarkers of aflatoxin ingestion in dairy cows fed no sequestering agents.
ItemAUC 1p-Value 2FC 3SensitivitySpecificity
Acetic acid0.910.010.721.00.8
l-Arginine0.890.040.750.90.9
Ethanol0.880.023.560.90.9
l-Alanine0.860.010.780.90.9
l-Methylhistidine0.860.010.880.80.8
l-Proline0.810.040.890.80.8
1 Area under the curve from receiver operating characteristic. 2 Treatment effect result from t-test of control vs. toxin treatment. 3 Fold change (ratio of average metabolite concentration in cows fed toxin to average metabolite concentration in cows fed control diet).
Back to TopTop