Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Dec 11;11(12):727.
doi: 10.3390/toxins11120727.

Co-occurrence of DON and Emerging Mycotoxins in Worldwide Finished Pig Feed and Their Combined Toxicity in Intestinal Cells

Abdullah Khan Khoshal  1 , Barbara Novak  2 , Pascal G P Martin  1 , Timothy Jenkins  2 , Manon Neves  1 , Gerd Schatzmayr  2 , Isabelle P Oswald  1 , Philippe Pinton  1
Affiliations

Co-occurrence of DON and Emerging Mycotoxins in Worldwide Finished Pig Feed and Their Combined Toxicity in Intestinal Cells

Abdullah Khan Khoshal et al. Toxins (Basel). .

Abstract

Food and feed can be naturally contaminated by several mycotoxins, and concern about the hazard of exposure to mycotoxin mixtures is increasing. In this study, more than 800 metabolites were analyzed in 524 finished pig feed samples collected worldwide. Eighty-eight percent of the samples were co-contaminated with deoxynivalenol (DON) and other regulated/emerging mycotoxins. The Top 60 emerging/regulated mycotoxins co-occurring with DON in pig feed shows that 48%, 13%, 8% and 12% are produced by Fusarium, Aspergillus, Penicillium and Alternaria species, respectively. Then, the individual and combined toxicity of DON and the 10 most prevalent emerging mycotoxins (brevianamide F, cyclo-(L-Pro-L-Tyr), tryptophol, enniatins A1, B, B1, emodin, aurofusarin, beauvericin and apicidin) was measured at three ratios corresponding to pig feed contamination. Toxicity was assessed by measuring the viability of intestinal porcine epithelial cells, IPEC-1, at 48-h. BRV-F, Cyclo and TRPT did not alter cell viability. The other metabolites were ranked in the following order of toxicity: apicidin > enniatin A1 > DON > beauvericin > enniatin B > enniatin B1 > emodin > aurofusarin. In most of the mixtures, combined toxicity was similar to the toxicity of DON alone. In terms of pig health, these results demonstrate that the co-occurrence of emerging mycotoxins that we tested with DON does not exacerbate toxicity.

Keywords: DON; IPEC-1; co-occurrence; combined toxicity; emerging mycotoxins; finished pig feed; global survey; toxicity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

B.N., T.J., and G.S. are employed by BIOMIN. However, this circumstance did not influence the design of the experimental studies or bias the presentation and interpretation of results. The other authors, A.K.K., P.G.P.P., M.N., P.P. and I.P.O. declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(A) Worldwide contamination of deoxynivalenol (DON). Concentration of DON is highlighted by colors, where yellow indicates > 100 µg/kg, green > 200 µg/kg, dark green > 300 and dark blue indicates > 400 µg/kg. (B) Abundance of DON in pig finished feed (P25, median, mean, P75). X axis represents the distribution of the concentration, Y axis describes the number of contaminated samples.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Dose effect curve of individual toxicity of apicidin (API). Data are mean ± SEM of three biological replicates. Bonferroni multiple comparison test. Significant difference between control and different doses of API *** p < 0.001.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Dose-effect curves of deoxynivalenol (DON) (blue lines and symbols), emerging mycotoxins (brevianamide-F (BRV-F), cyclo-(L-Pro-L-Tyr) (Cyclo) and tryptophol (TRPT)) alone (red lines and symbols), or in combination with DON (black lines and symbols) at different ratios: ratio 1 was calculated from the P25 concentration of emerging mycotoxin and P75 concentration of DON; ratio 2 was calculated from the median concentration of emerging mycotoxin and DON; ratio 3 was calculated from the P75 concentration of emerging mycotoxin and the P25 concentration of DON. Six serial dilutions of each ratio were tested (Emerging mycotoxin alone, DON alone, mixture). Data are mean ± SEM of three biological replicates. Bonferroni multiple comparison test. Significant difference between emerging mycotoxins alone and the mixtures *** p < 0.001. Significant difference between DON alone and the mixtures # # # p < 0.001.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Dose-effect curves of DON (blue lines and symbols), emerging mycotoxins (AFN, EMO and ENN-B1) alone (red lines and symbols) or in combination with DON (black lines and symbols) at different ratios: ratio 1 was calculated from the P25 concentration of emerging mycotoxin and P75 concentration of DON; ratio 2 was calculated from the median concentration of emerging mycotoxin and DON; ratio 3 was calculated from the P75 concentration of emerging mycotoxin and P25 concentration of DON. Six serial dilutions of each ratio were tested (Emerging mycotoxin alone, DON alone, mixture). Data are mean ± SEM of three biological replicates. Bonferroni multiple comparison test. Significant difference between emerging mycotoxins alone and the mixtures *** p < 0.001. Significant difference between DON alone and the mixtures # # # p < 0.001.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Dose-effect curves of DON (blue lines and symbols), emerging mycotoxins (ENN-B, BEA, ENN-A1 and API) alone (red lines and symbols) or in combination with DON (black lines and symbols) at different ratios: ratio 1 was calculated from the P25 concentration of the emerging mycotoxin and the P75 concentration of DON; ratio 2 was calculated from the median concentration of emerging mycotoxin and DON; ratio 3 was calculated from the P75 concentration of emerging mycotoxin and the P25 concentration of DON. Six serial dilutions of each ratio were tested (Emerging mycotoxin alone, DON alone, mixture). Data are mean ± SEM of three biological replicates. Bonferroni multiple comparison test. Significant difference between emerging mycotoxins alone and the mixtures *** p < 0.001. Significant difference between DON alone and the mixtures # # # p < 0.001.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bennett J.W., Klich M. Mycotoxins. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2003;16:497–516. doi: 10.1128/CMR.16.3.497-516.2003. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. European Commission Commission Recommendation of 17 August 2006 on the presence of deoxynivalenol, zearalenone, ochratoxin A, T-2 and HT-2 and fumonisins in products intended for animal feeding. Off. J. Eur. Union. 2006;L229:7–9.
    1. European Commission Commission Recommendation of 27 March 2013 on the presence of T-2 and HT-2 toxin in cereals and cereal productsText with EEA relevance. Off. J. Eur. Union. 2013;L91:12–15.
    1. Berthiller F., Crews C., Dall’Asta C., Saeger S.D., Haesaert G., Karlovsky P., Oswald I.P., Seefelder W., Speijers G., Stroka J. Masked mycotoxins: A review. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2013;57:165–186. doi: 10.1002/mnfr.201100764. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Malachová A., Sulyok M., Beltrán E., Berthiller F., Krska R. Optimization and validation of a quantitative liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometric method covering 295 bacterial and fungal metabolites including all regulated mycotoxins in four model food matrices. J. Chromatogr. A. 2014;1362:145–156. doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2014.08.037. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types