OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
Toxicology reports
Dec, 2024;13 101752.

approximation to aflatoxin B metabolism and sensitivity in commercial poultry species based on empirical mathematical equations.

Hansen W Murcia, Gonzalo Diaz, Rub��n Dar��o Acosta
Author Information
  1. Hansen W Murcia: Departamento de Biolog��a, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Antonio Nari��o, Carrera 3 este 47A - 15, Bogot�� D.C., Colombia.
  2. Gonzalo Diaz: Laboratorio de Toxicolog��a y Nutrici��n Aviar. Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogot�� D.C., Colombia.
  3. Rub��n Dar��o Acosta: Departamento de Sistemas Computacionales e Ingenier��a Industrial, Facultad de Ingenier��a, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogot�� D.C., Colombia.
PMID: 39421230 DOI: 10.1016/j.toxrep.2024.101752

Abstract

Enzyme kinetic parameters for aflatoxin B metabolism have been reported for chicken, quail, turkey and duck, but an integrated model has not been proposed. Both enzyme-catalyzed reactions and spontaneous reactions were modeled in the CellDesigner software and results were adjusted to Hill, Rational and Hoerl models. Results revealed that the higher amount of aflatoxin B epoxide produced in a short lapse of time and a low production of epoxide conjugated to glutathione explains the severe genotoxic effect of aflatoxin B in duck. Also, the higher amount of aflatoxicol produced is time-associated to aflatoxin B resistance in chicken. Finally, the cytotoxic effects in quail and duck are caused by a large aflatoxin B dialdehyde production in a short period of time.

Keywords

Aflatoxin B1 metabolism Cytotoxic pathway Genotoxic pathway Xenobiotic metabolism simulation in silico simulation

References

  1. Chem Res Toxicol. 2002 Jun;15(6):780-92 [PMID: 12067245]
  2. Sci Rep. 2019 May 29;9(1):8010 [PMID: 31142777]
  3. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1988 Mar 3;938(3):334-44 [PMID: 3126815]
  4. Toxicol Lett. 2023 Nov 1;389:34-44 [PMID: 37890682]
  5. Sci Rep. 2020 Mar 26;10(1):5508 [PMID: 32218462]
  6. Mutat Res. 1998 Jun 18;402(1-2):121-8 [PMID: 9675258]
  7. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1988 Nov 2;80(17):1383-6 [PMID: 2845109]
  8. PLoS One. 2020 Jun 22;15(6):e0235061 [PMID: 32569334]
  9. Poult Sci. 1985 Sep;64(9):1678-84 [PMID: 4048060]
  10. Poult Sci. 2004 Dec;83(12):1953-8 [PMID: 15615006]
  11. Poult Sci. 1981 Mar;60(3):528-31 [PMID: 7301721]
  12. Poult Sci. 1973 Mar;52(2):465-73 [PMID: 4196812]
  13. Poult Sci. 1991 Aug;70(8):1823-30 [PMID: 1656420]
  14. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2005 May 1;204(3):216-37 [PMID: 15845415]
  15. FEBS Lett. 2006 Feb 13;580(4):1103-11 [PMID: 16387301]
  16. Mutat Res. 1994 Aug;313(1):25-38 [PMID: 7519308]
  17. Cancer Res. 1988 Dec 15;48(24 Pt 1):7146-9 [PMID: 3142684]
  18. J Wildl Dis. 2000 Jul;36(3):436-44 [PMID: 10941727]
  19. Br Poult Sci. 2010 Dec;51(6):828-37 [PMID: 21161791]
  20. J Clin Pharmacol. 1997 Jun;37(6):480-5 [PMID: 9208354]
  21. Chem Res Toxicol. 2011 Sep 19;24(9):1549-59 [PMID: 21780761]
  22. Poult Sci. 2021 Aug;100(8):101235 [PMID: 34214746]
  23. Toxicon. 2002 Jul;40(7):941-5 [PMID: 12076648]
  24. Poult Sci. 2007 Aug;86(8):1620-4 [PMID: 17626804]
  25. Poult Sci. 2010 Nov;89(11):2461-9 [PMID: 20952710]
  26. Br Poult Sci. 2006 Dec;47(6):734-41 [PMID: 17190682]
  27. Poult Sci. 1995 Aug;74(8):1295-303 [PMID: 7479507]
  28. Cancer Detect Prev. 2001;25(2):192-201 [PMID: 11341355]
  29. Gastroenterology. 1994 Feb;106(2):433-9 [PMID: 8299909]
  30. Avian Pathol. 2010 Aug;39(4):279-85 [PMID: 20706884]
  31. Biochem Pharmacol. 1985 Jul 15;34(14):2566-9 [PMID: 3925956]
  32. Poult Sci. 2002 Jul;81(7):976-80 [PMID: 12162358]
  33. Sci Total Environ. 2016 Nov 15;571:259-68 [PMID: 27479466]
  34. Br J Pharmacol. 2023 Oct;180 Suppl 2:S289-S373 [PMID: 38123154]
  35. Mol Pharmacol. 1997 Jun;51(6):1034-41 [PMID: 9187270]
  36. Pharm Res. 2011 May;28(5):1081-9 [PMID: 21234658]
  37. Cancer Res. 1977 Jun;37(6):1786-93 [PMID: 192462]
  38. Chem Res Toxicol. 2008 Mar;21(3):752-60 [PMID: 18266327]
  39. Mar Environ Res. 2000 Jul-Dec;50(1-5):11-5 [PMID: 11460675]
  40. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods. 2015 Jan-Feb;71:68-76 [PMID: 25157754]
  41. Pharmacol Ther. 1991;50(3):443-72 [PMID: 1754606]
  42. Toxicol In Vitro. 2010 Feb;24(1):217-23 [PMID: 19747537]
  43. J Pharmacol Sci. 2008 Mar;106(3):435-43 [PMID: 18319568]
  44. Poult Sci. 1985 May;64(5):859-65 [PMID: 3923465]
  45. Br Poult Sci. 2009 Mar;50(2):240-50 [PMID: 19373725]
  46. Folia Histochem Cytobiol. 1985;23(1-2):71-9 [PMID: 3930302]
  47. Carcinogenesis. 1987 Aug;8(8):1065-70 [PMID: 3111740]
  48. Food Cosmet Toxicol. 1972 Aug;10(4):501-12 [PMID: 4404294]
  49. Toxicon. 2005 Aug;46(2):204-9 [PMID: 15964045]
  50. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Sep 27;16(19): [PMID: 31569703]
  51. Toxins (Basel). 2019 Sep 18;11(9): [PMID: 31540490]
Journal Article

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0aflatoxinBmetabolismduckchickenquailreactionshigheramountepoxideproducedshorttimeproductionpathwaysimulationEnzymekineticparametersreportedturkeyintegratedmodelproposedenzyme-catalyzedspontaneousmodeledCellDesignersoftwareresultsadjustedHillRationalHoerlmodelsResultsrevealedlapselowconjugatedglutathioneexplainsseveregenotoxiceffectAlsoaflatoxicoltime-associatedresistanceFinallycytotoxiceffectscausedlargedialdehydeperiodapproximationsensitivitycommercialpoultryspeciesbasedempiricalmathematicalequationsAflatoxinB1CytotoxicGenotoxicXenobioticsilico

Similar Articles

Cited By