评估人类神经毒性和毒理相互作用的影响,同时发生的调节和新兴的真菌毒素
Soraia V M de Sá1, Carolina Sousa Monteiro1, José O Fernandes1
1LAQV-REQUIMTE, Laboratory of Bromatology and Hydrology, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Porto, Rua de Jorge Viterbo Ferreira, 228, 4050-313 Porto, Portugal.
Food research international (Ottawa, Ont.)
|April 12, 2024
概括
这项研究评估了常见食品菌毒素在人类神经细胞中的综合神经毒性. 奥克拉托克素A和斯特里格马托西斯的组合显示出显著的协同效应,突出了食品中同时出现的真菌毒素带来的风险.
科学领域:
- 毒理学 毒理学 毒理学
- 神经科学是一个神经科学.
- 食品安全 食品安全
背景情况:
- 菌毒素在食品中普遍存在,并与神经退行性疾病有关.
- 评估结合菌根毒素的毒性对于理解人类健康风险至关重要.
- 以谷物为基础的产品是饮食中菌毒素暴露的常见来源.
研究的目的:
- 在人类SH-SY5Y神经细胞中评估单个和组合的真菌毒素 (ENNB,STG,AFB1,CPZ,CIT,OTA) 的细胞毒性.
- 为了确定菌毒素组合的相互作用类型 (协同作用,添加剂,对抗作用).
- 为了确定具有显著协同作用或对抗作用的特定真菌毒素对.
主要方法:
- 使用中位数效应方程 (Chou 和 Talalay 的方法) 的细胞毒性评估.
- 测试单个真菌毒素及其二元和二元组合.
- 通过人类SH-SY5Y神经细胞的IC50值来量化神经毒性.
主要成果:
- 恩雅丁B (ENNB) 是最具神经毒性的个人菌毒素,其次是Ochratoxin A (OTA) 和Sterigmatocystin (STG).
- OTA + STG组合显示了最高的联合毒性,而CPZ + CIT则是最低的.
- 大约70%的二元组合表现出协同效应或添加效应;OTA主要表现出协同效应 (90%),而ENNB倾向于对抗.
结论:
- 菌毒素在食品中的同时存在可能导致显著的协同神经毒性作用,增加人类暴露的危险.
- STG + CIT组合显示出了显著的协同作用,降低了相应毒性所需的剂量.
- 准确评估结合性真菌毒素暴露对公共健康至关重要,特别是考虑到它们在食物和环境中经常存在.
相关概念视频
Types of Toxins
1.7K
Humans continually engage with an environment rich in potentially harmful chemicals. These are introduced to our bodies through inhalation, ingestion, or skin contact. These chemicals exist in various forms, such as air and environmental pollutants, agricultural chemicals, organic solvents, and heavy metals.
Air pollutants, primarily gases, pose significant threats to respiratory health, leading to conditions like hypoxia, lung cancer, and in extreme cases, death.
Environmental pollutants like...
Air pollutants, primarily gases, pose significant threats to respiratory health, leading to conditions like hypoxia, lung cancer, and in extreme cases, death.
Environmental pollutants like...
1.7K
Mutagenicity and Carcinogenicity
1.3K
Mutagenicity and carcinogenicity refer to the ability of drugs to cause genetic defects and induce cancer, respectively. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies agents into four groups based on their carcinogenic potential. Group 1 agents are known human carcinogens; group 2A agents are probably carcinogenic to humans; group 3 agents lack data to support their role in carcinogenesis; and group 4 includes agents for which data support that they are not likely to be...
1.3K


