| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© 1998 Oxford University Press
research-article |
Prevention of Maternal and Developmental Toxicity in Rats via Dietary Inclusion of Common Aflatoxin Sorbents: Potential for Hidden Risks
*Intercollegiate Faculty of Toxicology (Department of Veterinary Anatomy and Public Health), College of Veterinary Medicine, Texas A&M University, College Station Texas 77843
Mycotoxins Central Laboratory, National Research Center, Cairo Egypt
Department of Veterinary Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Texas A&M University, College Station Texas
Received July 9, 1997; accepted November 14, 1997
In earlier work, we have reported that a phyllosilicate clay (HSCAS or NovaSil) can tightly and selectively bind the aflatoxins in vitro and in vivo. Since then, a variety of untested clay and zeolitic minerals have been added to poultry and livestock feeds as potential "aflatoxin binders." However, the efficacy and safety of these products have not been determined. A common zeolite that has been frequently added to animal feed is clinoptilolite. Our objectives in this study were twofold: (1) to utilize the pregnant rat as an in vivo model to compare the potential of HSCAS and clinoptilolite to prevent the developmental toxicity of aflatoxin B1 (AfB1), and (2) to determine the effect of these two sorbents on the metabolism and bioavailability of AfB1. Clay and zeolitic minerals (HSCAS or clinoptilolite) were added to the diet at a level of 0.5% (w/w) and fed to pregnant Sprague-Dawley rats throughout pregnancy (i.e., day 0 to 20). Treatment groups (HSCAS or clinoptilolite) alone and in combination with AfB1 were exposed to sorbents in the feed as well as by gavage. Untreated and AfB1 control animals were fed the basal diet without added sorbent. Between gestation days 6 and 13, animals maintained on diets containing sorbent were gavaged with corn oil in combination with an amount of the respective sorbent equivalent to 0.5% of the estimated maximum daily intake of feed. Animals receiving AfB1 were dosed orally (between days 6 and 13) with AfB1 (2 mg/kg body wt) either alone or concomitantly with a similar quantity of the respective sorbent Evaluations of toxicity were performed on day 20. These included: maternal (mortality, body weights, feed intake, and litter weights), developmental (embryonic resorptions and fetal body weights), and histologjcal (maternal livers and kidneys). Sorbents alone were not toxic; AfB1 alone and with clinoptilolite resulted in significant maternal and developmental toxicity. Animals treated with HSCAS (plus AfB1) were comparable to controls. Importantly, clinoptilolite (plus AfB1) resulted in severe maternal liver lesions (more severe than AfB1 alone), suggesting that this zeolite may interact with dietary components that modulate aflatoxicosis. In metabolism studies, adult male Sprague-Dawley rats, maintained on diets containing 0.5% (w/w) HSCAS or clinoptilolite, were dosed orally with 2.0 mg AfB1/kg body wt. The concentration of the major urinary metabolite (AfM1) was considerably decreased in the presence of HSCAS. These results suggest that the mechanism of protection of AfB1-induced maternal and developmental toxicities in the rat may involve adsorption and reduction of AfB1 bioavailability in vivo. Importantly, this study demonstrates the potential for significant hidden risks associated with the inclusion of nonselective aflatoxin binders in feeds. Aflatoxin sorbents should be rigorously tested individually and thoroughly characterized in vivo, paying particular attention to their effectiveness and safety in sensitive animal models and their potential for deleterious interactions.
Key Words: aflatoxin B1; adsorption; clay; HSCAS; clinoptilolite; aflatoxicosis.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. H Williams, T. D Phillips, P. E Jolly, J. K Stiles, C. M Jolly, and D. Aggarwal Human aflatoxicosis in developing countries: a review of toxicology, exposure, potential health consequences, and interventions Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, November 1, 2004; 80(5): 1106 - 1122. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|