Next Article in Journal
Insecticidal Activities of Sophora flavescens Alt. towards Red Imported Fire Ants (Solenopsis invicta Buren)
Previous Article in Journal
Contribution of Mass Spectrometry to the Advances in Risk Characterization of Marine Biotoxins: Towards the Characterization of Metabolites Implied in Human Intoxications
Previous Article in Special Issue
Volatiles from Pseudomonas palleroniana Strain B-BH16-1 Suppress Aflatoxin Production and Growth of Aspergillus flavus on Coix lacryma-jobi during Storage
 
 
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
This is an early access version, the complete PDF, HTML, and XML versions will be available soon.
Article

Comparative Assessment of Different Yeast Cell Wall-Based Mycotoxin Adsorbents Using a Model- and Bioassay-Based In Vitro Approach

1
Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G2W1, Canada
2
Alltech Inc., Center for Animal Nutrigenomics and Applied Animal Nutrition, 3031 Catnip Hill Road, Nicholasville, KY 40356, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Toxins 2023, 15(2), 104; https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins15020104
Received: 16 December 2022 / Revised: 18 January 2023 / Accepted: 20 January 2023 / Published: 24 January 2023

Abstract

Frequently reported occurrences of deoxynivalenol (DON), beauvericin (BEA), and, to a lesser extent, ochratoxin A (OTA) and citrinin (CIT) in ruminant feed or feedstuff could represent a significant concern regarding feed safety, animal health, and productivity. Inclusion of yeast cell wall-based mycotoxin adsorbents in animal feeds has been a common strategy to mitigate adverse effects of mycotoxins. In the present study, an in vitro approach combining adsorption isotherm models and bioassays was designed to assess the efficacy of yeast cell wall (YCW), yeast cell wall extract (YCWE), and a postbiotic yeast cell wall-based blend (PYCW) products at the inclusion rate of 0.5% (w/v) (ratio of adsorbent mass to buffer solution volume). The Hill’s adsorption isotherm model was found to best describe the adsorption processes of DON, BEA, and CIT. Calculated binding potential for YCW and YCWE using the Hill’s model exhibited the same ranking for mycotoxin adsorption, indicating that BEA had the highest adsorption rate, followed by DON and CIT, which was the least adsorbed. PYCW had the highest binding potential for BEA compared with YCW and YCWE. In contrast, the Freundlich isotherm model presented a good fit for OTA adsorption by all adsorbents and CIT adsorption by PYCW. Results indicated that YCW was the most efficacious for sequestering OTA, whereas YCWE was the least efficacious. PYCW showed greater efficacy at adsorbing OTA than CIT. All adsorbents exhibited high adsorption efficacy for BEA, with an overall percentage average of bound mycotoxin exceeding 60%, whereas moderate efficacies for the other mycotoxins were observed (up to 37%). Differences in adsorbent efficacy of each adsorbent significantly varied according to experimental concentrations tested for each given mycotoxin (p < 0.05). The cell viability results from the bioassay using a bovine mammary epithelial cell line (MAC-T) indicated that all tested adsorbents could potentially mitigate mycotoxin-related damage to bovine mammary epithelium. Results from our studies suggested that all tested adsorbents had the capacity to adsorb selected mycotoxins in vitro, which could support their use to mitigate their effects in vivo.
Keywords: adsorption; gastrointestinal digestion model; isotherm models; in vitro cell culture; liquid chromatography; novel detoxification strategies; remediation; ruminants; sequestration; toxicity adsorption; gastrointestinal digestion model; isotherm models; in vitro cell culture; liquid chromatography; novel detoxification strategies; remediation; ruminants; sequestration; toxicity

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Xu, R.; Yiannikouris, A.; Shandilya, U.K.; Karrow, N.A. Comparative Assessment of Different Yeast Cell Wall-Based Mycotoxin Adsorbents Using a Model- and Bioassay-Based In Vitro Approach. Toxins 2023, 15, 104. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins15020104

AMA Style

Xu R, Yiannikouris A, Shandilya UK, Karrow NA. Comparative Assessment of Different Yeast Cell Wall-Based Mycotoxin Adsorbents Using a Model- and Bioassay-Based In Vitro Approach. Toxins. 2023; 15(2):104. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins15020104

Chicago/Turabian Style

Xu, Ran, Alexandros Yiannikouris, Umesh K. Shandilya, and Niel A. Karrow. 2023. "Comparative Assessment of Different Yeast Cell Wall-Based Mycotoxin Adsorbents Using a Model- and Bioassay-Based In Vitro Approach" Toxins 15, no. 2: 104. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins15020104

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop