Figure 1 - Degradability (line) and residual concentration (bar) of DON after LiP treatment in the simulated pig GIT.
Control Stomach simulation 100 a
90 80 70 60 50
40 30 20 10 0
0 1 2 a a a a LiP a LiP Small intestinal simulation a b b b b b b b 3 Time, h 4 5 6 7
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
treatments compared to that in the control treatment. The growth inhibition observed was attributed to the loss of chitin synthase activity in F. graminearum that, in turn, compromise fungal growth, development, and pathogenicity.
Reduction of DON production When the F. graminearum culture was treated with both MnP and LiP at 50 U/mL for 7 days, DON production was not detected in either treatments (the limit of detection was 100 µg/kg), whereas the control treatment produced 9 mg/kg of DON. The decrease was attributed to the inhibition capacity of the two peroxidases on growth of F. graminearum which, in turn, minimise DON production.
Results of the study Growth inhibition of F. graminearum The inhibition rate of F. graminearum with LiP treatment was significantly higher than with MnP treatment. The inhibition rates of F. graminearum after MnP and LiP treatments for 7 days were 23.7% and 74.7%, respectively. The microscopic examination revealed that LiP treatment induced marked changes in the fungi’s morphology, leading to significant collapse and breakdown of hyphae (filaments). The fungal cell wall is comprised of glucan and chitin that play essential roles in several biological functions, including maintaining the physical strength of cell walls. In the present study, the chitinase activity were both increased in MnP and LiP
Figure 2 - Degradability (line) and residual concentration (bar) of DON in the control and LiP treatment groups under poultry GIT simulations.
Control Gizzard 100
90 80 70 60 50
40 30 20 10 0
0 1 2 Time, h 78 ▶ MYCOTOXINS | NOVEMBER 2021 2.5 3.5
Crop and glandular stomach simulation
a b b b b b a simulation a a a LiP LiP
Small intestinal simulation
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
4.5
DON degradability in simulated pig and poultry GIT Because LiP treatment showed a better antifungal effect than MnP treatment and no significant difference was observed between MnP and LiP treatments on reduction of DON pro- duction, only the LiP treatment was selected for the pig and poultry GIT simulation trials. For the simulation of pig stom- ach conditions (pH 2.5) for 5 h, the degradability of DON (at 1 mg/kg) was 83.3%, under the simulated pig small intestine conditions (pH 6.5) the degradability was 85.1%. There was hardly any degradation of DON in control groups (Figure 1). Under the simulated poultry crop and glandular stomach condition (pH 4.5), the degradability of DON (5 mg/kg) after LiP treatment was 39.8%, in the simulated gizzard conditions (pH 2.5), the degradability was 36.5% and under the simulat- ed small intestine condition (pH 6.5), the degradability was 67.2%. These degradability percentages were significantly higher than that in the control groups (Figure 2).
The next step In addition to the potential applications of manganese perox- idase and lignin peroxidase, the researchers highlighted that their results offer a simplified procedure in turning disposed spent mushroom substrate into a valuable by-product from the mushroom industry in an environment-friendly manner. They stated that it is worth mentioning that MnP and LiP could be developed into antifungal agents and DON-degrad- ing food or feed additives to avoid mycotoxin economic loss- es. However, they highlighted the need to first establish the toxicity or cytotoxicity levels of both MnP and LiP, as well as their metabolites after enzymatic digestion for the safety of animals and humans. The use of suitable carriers to increase stability of the extracts during storage was emphasised.
Article is based on the research paper ‘The Potential of Peroxidases Extracted from the Spent Mushroom (Flammulina velutipes) Substrate Significantly Degrade Mycotoxin Deoxynivalenol’, written by Ko-Hua Tso, Chompunut Lumsangkul, Jyh-Cherng Ju, Yang-Kwang Fan and Hsin-I Chiang. The full paper can be accessed in the journal Toxins.
Residual DON concentration, mg/kg
Residual DON concentration, mg/kg
DON degradability, %
DON degradability, %
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80
