Effet chez le porcelet d'une exposition à un régime co-contaminé en ...

INTRODUCTIONCHARACTERIZATION OF THE DIFFERENT INTERACTIONS BETWEEN MYCOTOXINSIn the present review, in order to be consistent among the different papers, we went back to theoriginal published raw data, and for each parameter that was measured, we classified the interactionin four different categories: synergistic, additive, less than additive and antagonistic effect.- The “synergy” category was complex and we could differentiate 3 types of synergistic interaction(Figure 4) : Synergism type 1: contains experiments where the effect of the mycotoxins combination wasgreater than expected from the sum of the individual effects of the two toxins. We alsoincluded in this category, experiments where one toxin did not display any effect but wherethe effect of the co-contaminated treatment was greater than the effect of the other toxinalone (potentialization, P). Synergism type 2: the two mycotoxins induce opposite effects and the combined treatmentinduces an effect greater than the individual effect. So even though the toxins have oppositeindividual effects, the interaction led to an exacerbated effect. Synergism type 3: the two mycotoxins induce similar effects and the combined treatmentinduces an opposite effect than the individual effects.- The “additive” category includes experiments where the effect of the combination could becalculated as the sum of the individual effects of the two toxins (Figure 4).- The “less than additive” category includes experiments where the effect of the combined treatmentmainly reflected the effect of only one of the toxin without additional effect of the other toxin(Figure 4).- We also differentiated 2 types of antagonistic interaction (Figure 4) : Antagonism type 1: the two mycotoxins induce similar effects and the combined treatmentinduces a lower effect. So, the combination lowered the effect of the more potent toxin. Antagonism type 2: the two mycotoxins don’t induce the same effects and the combinedtreatment induces an effect intermediate between the two individual treatments. So, thecombination lowered the effect of one of the toxin.Results of the interaction were only reported, where significant differences were observedbetween the control group (no mycotoxin) and at least one of the mycotoxin-contaminated group(mycotoxin A, mycotoxin B or mycotoxin A+B), on parameters measured at the end of theexperiment. Regarding histopathological analysis, few studies scored the incidence and severity oflesions; so we could not have analyzed the results based on the raw data, and include them in thedifferent tables. Nevertheless, we included the conclusions as indicated by the authors in the text.23