23 August 2021 – Our understanding of the mycotoxin challenge has largely been informed by data captured through feedstuff testing and monitoring of the animal’s health. The result has been mitigation strategies focused on reducing the occurrence and effects of mycotoxins in animals without a clear grasp of their actions on a cellular level. Until recently.
Cytotoxicity assays are now helping us understand the damaging actions that mycotoxins can have on an animal’s intestinal cells and their degree of toxicity. This in vitro test uses special dyes which help show the stages of a cell’s lifecycle. Healthy cells, with their cell membrane intact, will hold the dye well and show up fully coloured on scans. As cell-membrane damage occurs in the presence of a toxin, the cells will leak dye and appear progressively lightly coloured. Dead cells are completely colourless, having leaked all the dye. This gives researchers a means to see cell degradation and a scale by which to measure the toxicity of a substance.
For ARM & HAMMER Animal and Food Production cytotoxicity assays represent a new way for the industry to approach the mycotoxin challenge, going from preventative strategies to more protective ones. For more, we spoke to the company’s Technical Services Manager, Dr Sangita Jalukar, and also discussed what cytotoxicity assays have revealed about the efficacy of ARM & HAMMER’s BG-MAX™ mycotoxin solution.
[Feedinfo] What does this improved knowledge of mycotoxin activity on animal cell integrity gathered from cytotoxicity scans reveal about the efficacy of our current methods of control?
|
|
[Sangita Jalukar] No mycotoxin control products are 100% effective or effective against all mycotoxins. Even when we do not have clinical mycotoxicosis, the subclinical damage caused by low levels of mycotoxins at the cellular level may cause performance variability and small losses that add up over the productive cycle of the animal. These strategies so far have been largely focused on how to bind mycotoxins or how to modify its structure, so it is less toxic. Not much attention has been paid to what the mycotoxins do at the cellular level and if there are ways to prevent the damage at the cellular level. The cytotoxicity assay shows the damage that mycotoxins can cause to intestinal epithelial cells and allows us to develop products that can protect from that damage. |
Dr Sangita Jalukar
[Feedinfo] Are these scans confirming our current understanding of which types of mycotoxins are more toxic than others? Or are there any surprises?
[Sangita Jalukar] Cytotoxicity results can vary with the type of animal cell line and the type of mycotoxin used. So, some surprises were expected! In our cytotoxicity assay, we found lower cytotoxicity against aflatoxin, fumonisin, and ochratoxin compared to the T2, deoxynivalenol and zearalenone. But we have to be careful how we interpret cytotoxicity data as this is an in vitro assay and the dose effects of the mycotoxin in an animal could be more complex.
[Feedinfo] You mentioned that cytotoxicity scans can help with the development of products that can protect from mycotoxin damage. How has ARM & HAMMER incorporated scan data into its product strategies?
[Sangita Jalukar] Developing a mycotoxin mitigation strategy targeting the animal instead of a specific mycotoxin is a proactive and comprehensive new approach. Based on extensive research and understanding of our refined functional carbohydrates (RFC) technology, we have selected specific RFCs that protect the gut epithelium from mycotoxin damage. And we have been able to show with cytotoxicity scans that RFCs could protect intestinal epithelial cells from toxicity caused by various mycotoxins. This protection at the gut level can block the ability of mycotoxins to migrate through the intestinal barrier and enter the bloodstream, reaching various organs. That forms the basis of our recently launched product called BG-MAX, which not only provides prevention but also protection from mycotoxins, allowing the animal to build resiliency to withstand challenges. We call this the PPR approach to mycotoxin control: Prevent, Protect and build Resiliency to set animals up effectively to meet mycotoxin challenges.
[Feedinfo] You recently conducted a study in China on the efficacy of BG-MAX in broilers exposed to common mycotoxins, namely aflatoxin B1, zearalenone and deoxynivalenol. What prompted the study and what were some of the findings?
[Sangita Jalukar] We wanted to study the benefits of BG-MAX under a natural mycotoxin challenge scenario where mycotoxin containing ingredients were used to formulate the diet. There is a lot of variation in different parts of the world when it comes to types of mycotoxins present and their levels. Asia tends to be one of the regions in the world with high prevalence and levels of mycotoxin, so conducting the study in that region made the most sense.
|
The study compared the effect of BG-MAX supplementation on growth performance in broilers fed either control or mycotoxin contaminated diets. The control diet was formulated with clean corn (AFB <20 ppb, DON=1.3ppm, ZEN=269ppb) and the mycotoxin diet was formulated with mouldy corn (AFB1 130 ppb, DON=1.5ppm, ZEN=496ppb). Broilers fed the mycotoxin-contaminated diet had decreased 42-d broiler weight and increased feed conversion ratio (FCR) compared to broilers fed control diets (Figure 1 and 2). Broilers fed the mycotoxin diet and supplemented with BG-MAX had a higher body weight and lower FCR compared to broilers fed mycotoxin diets without and was similar to that of broilers fed the control diet (Figures 1 and 2). |
|
a,b P<0.05
a,b P<0.05In conclusion, supplementation with BG-MAX could help improve growth performance of broilers fed diets contaminated with moderate levels of aflatoxin, zearalenone and deoxynivalenol.
Many products show binding efficacy in vitro but lack in vivo data. Others use pure mycotoxins in their in vivo studies. Few studies have reported mycotoxin binder efficacy with naturally contaminated feed containing multiple mycotoxins.
[Feedinfo] How did BG-MAX perform against deoxynivalenol, which has traditionally been more difficult to reliably bind?
[Sangita Jalukar] Yes, that was one of the key questions we had! Similar to other mycotoxin binders, the binding ability of BG-MAX to deoxynivalenol was poor but we found that it was effective in reducing the cytotoxicity caused by DON in our cytotoxicity assay.
[Feedinfo] Recent scientific evidence suggests that feed sample testing does not necessarily paint an accurate picture of the mycotoxin threat. What in your opinion could a more comprehensive mycotoxin testing concept look like and how do you see cytotoxicity scans aiding?
[Sangita Jalukar] Mold and mycotoxins are not distributed evenly in grain silos or silages but are, instead, present in pockets. As a result, there can be a lot of variation when the feed components are used to formulate a ration. Hence, even if mycotoxin testing is done, the testing results are not always helpful due to time lags between testing and feeding the animals.
We are finding that a comprehensive mycotoxin control programme involves both protection from mycotoxins using binders, and additionally, prevention derived from the use of products like RFCs that provide inside-out protection at the cellular level. BG-MAX provides both protection and prevention from mycotoxins, allowing the animal to build resiliency to withstand challenges.
Cytotoxicity screening is not to be construed as a routine assay. It just helps us know efficacy of a product or intervention against individual or multiple mycotoxins (since low levels of 2 or more combined can be more damaging than any one of them alone). Feed testing is helpful to know what specific mycotoxins are going to be an issue and use our cytotoxicity panel to know how effective we are. Because mycotoxin levels are going to be variable in any feedstuff, we can really only use mycotoxin assays to know which ones are present.
[Feedinfo] What do you have to say to producers, especially in the poultry sector, that do not see the value in a mycotoxin mitigation strategy because they cannot measure the benefits of such technologies in terms of animal performance and health?
[Sangita Jalukar] The negative effects of individual mycotoxins have been well documented. We continue to learn the detrimental synergistic effects of multiple mycotoxins on bird health and productivity. Similar to a vaccination programme used to protect your birds from certain pathogens, a mycotoxin mitigation programme is like an insurance policy because the threat from mycotoxins is unpredictable and variable. That is why it is important to select a mycotoxin mitigation strategy that has been scientifically proven in vitro and in vivo. It is important for the producer to be able to measure benefits of a mycotoxin mitigation programme. But due to the inherent variation seen in levels of mycotoxins, producers should use a good monitoring programme over multiple flocks to be able to measure a difference.
Published in association with ARM & HAMMER Animal and Food Production
