Effet chez le porcelet d'une exposition Ã un rÃ©gime co-contaminÃ© en ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Table 1 : Interaction between Aflatoxins (AF) and Fumonisins (FB)MycotoxinsSpecies(exposure)Doses0.1 – 3AF-FBFish0.1 – 23(322 d) 1AF-FBMouse(90 d)AF-FBChicken(21 d)AF-FBPig(28 d)0.1 – 1040.01 – 100.05 – 100.35 – 102.45 – 100.05 – 100.05 – 30AF-FBRat0.017 bw/d(56 d) 2 – 250AF-FBPig(35 d)AF-FBTurkey(21 d)AF-FBChicken(27 d)2.5 – 1000.75 – 2002.5 – 200AF-FB 0.05 – 10SYNERGISTIC INTERACTIONANTAGONISTIC INTERACTIONLESS THANADDITIVEADDITIVEType 1 Type 2 Type 3 INTERACTIONType 1 Type 2INTERACTION- tumors in AF-initiatedliver ↗ (P)- tumors in AF-initiatedliver ↗ (P)- AST ↗ (P)- intensification of- congestion, hemolysislesions in liver ↗in kidney ↗- enlarged thymus ↗- heterophils ↘ - lymphocytes ↗- tumors in AF-initiatedliver ↗- feed intake ↗ - cholesterol ↘- triglyceride →- ALP ↘- lymphocytes ↗- heterophils ↘- albumin ↘ - lymphocytes ↗- heterophils ↘- BWG ↘ (P)- feed intake ↘ (P)- GSTP + lesions/foci ↗- BWG, feed intake ↘- AST, CHL, ALP ↗- mortality ↗- glucose, inorganicphosphorus ↘- BWG ↘ (P)- RW-L, K ↗ (P)- feed intake ↘- egg weight ↘- RW-L ↘ - triglycerides ↗- RBC ↗- lymphocytesstimulation ↘- RW-L ↘ - BWG ↘- RW-Pc ↗- AST ↗- RW-L,H, Lg ↗- GGT ↗- BUN ↘- RW-G ↗- TP, cholesterol,triglycerides, calcium ↘- LDH ↗- lymphocytesstimulation ↘- TP ↘- RW-S ↗- egg production ↘- mortality ↗- BUN ↗- CK ↗- calcium ↘- congestion,hemolysis in spleen →- total iron ↗- RW-K ↗- albumin ↘- uric acid →- ALP ↘- hemoglobin ↘- albumin ↘- RW-G ↗REFCarlson etal., 2001Casado etal., 2001Del Bianchiet al., 2005Dilkin et al.,2003Gelderblomet al., 2002Harvey etal., 1995bKubena etal., 1995bMiazzo etal., 2005Ogido et al.,
Page 2 and 3: AUTEUR : Bertrand GRENIERTITRE : Ef
Page 4 and 5: REMERCIEMENTSLe travail ici présen
Page 6 and 7: J’ai une pensée particulière po
Page 8 and 9: Grenier, B., Loureiro-Bracarense, A
Page 10 and 11: TABLE DES MATIERES ................
Page 12 and 13: LISTE DES ABREVIATIONSAFAflatoxineD
Page 14 and 15: FIGURES ET TABLEAUXFigure 1 : Mycot
Page 16 and 17: INTRODUCTION8
Page 18 and 19: INTRODUCTIONCONTEXTE DE L’ETUDELe
Page 20 and 21: INTRODUCTIONElle se présentait sou
Page 22 and 23: INTRODUCTIONl’utilisation de ce m
Page 24 and 25: INTRODUCTION1. Les mycotoxines : g
Page 26 and 27: INTRODUCTIONc) La zéaralénone (vo
Page 28 and 29: INTRODUCTIONleucoencéphalomalacies
Page 30 and 31: INTRODUCTIONMycotoxins co-contamina
Page 32 and 33: INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTIONFood safety
Page 36 and 37: Quail(140 d)AF-FBRabbit(21 d)AF-FBR
Page 38 and 39: INTRODUCTIONdue to the ingestion of
Page 40 and 41: Table 2 : Interaction between Aflat
Page 42 and 43: (49 d) - RW-L ↗- Ab SRBC ↘- RW-
Page 44 and 45: INTRODUCTIONb) effects AF and OTA o
Page 46 and 47: INTRODUCTIONThe depletion of lympho
Page 48 and 49: AF-T2Chicken 0.3 - 3.0(35 d)AF-T2Ra
Page 50 and 51: INTRODUCTIONonly seen in birds give
Page 52 and 53: (30 d) 2AF-RUBGuinea pig 0.02 bw -(
Page 54 and 55: INTRODUCTIONbetween AF and CPA on t
Page 56 and 57: (21 day) - RBC, hemoglobin ↗- AST
Page 58 and 59: INTRODUCTIONII. INTERACTIONS BETWEE
Page 60 and 61: INTRODUCTIONwhereas in the experime
Page 62 and 63: INTRODUCTION2.2) TCT type A and BTw
Page 64 and 65: Table 6 : Interaction between Ochra
Page 66 and 67: T2-CPAChicken(28 d)T2-CPAChicken(21
Page 68 and 69: INTRODUCTIONexposed group (Brown et
Page 70 and 71: INTRODUCTION2.3) Interaction betwee
Page 72 and 73: INTRODUCTIONeffects in comparison t
Page 74 and 75: INTRODUCTION3. Procédés de décon
Page 76 and 77: INTRODUCTIONPhysical and chemical m
Page 78 and 79: INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTIONConsumption
Page 80 and 81: INTRODUCTIONmm screen shows that fr
Page 82 and 83: INTRODUCTIONseparate the grain into
Page 84 and 85:
Table 7 : toxicological evaluation
Page 86 and 87:
INTRODUCTIONextrusion parameters ra
Page 88 and 89:
INTRODUCTION- an important loss of
Page 90 and 91:
INTRODUCTIONal., 2005). The fate of
Page 92 and 93:
INTRODUCTIONby a steeping period. S
Page 94 and 95:
INTRODUCTIONon cell tissue cultures
Page 96 and 97:
INTRODUCTIONCONCLUSIONDetoxificatio
Page 98 and 99:
INTRODUCTIONMycotoxin Reduction in
Page 100 and 101:
INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTIONMycotoxin-p
Page 102 and 103:
INTRODUCTIONI. ADSORPTION OF MYCOTO
Page 104 and 105:
Rats3000 ppb 0.5 %2500 ppb 0.5 %250
Page 106 and 107:
INTRODUCTIONIn studies of the poten
Page 108 and 109:
INTRODUCTIONSubstances investigated
Page 110 and 111:
Table 9 : Outcome of yeast cell wal
Page 112 and 113:
INTRODUCTIONFurthermore, cholestyra
Page 114 and 115:
INTRODUCTIONwall peptidoglycans and
Page 116 and 117:
INTRODUCTIONII. BIOLOGICAL DETOXIFI
Page 118 and 119:
INTRODUCTIONdecrease in toxin-conce
Page 120 and 121:
INTRODUCTIONCONCLUSIONPrevention an
Page 122 and 123:
TRAVAILEXPERIMENTAL90
Page 124 and 125:
TRAVAIL EXPERIMENTALtoxicité gén
Page 126 and 127:
TRAVAIL EXPERIMENTALRESUME DES ETUD
Page 128 and 129:
These are not the final page number
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
TRAVAIL EXPERIMENTALChronic ingesti
Page 142 and 143:
TRAVAIL EXPERIMENTALINTRODUCTIONMyc
Page 144 and 145:
TRAVAIL EXPERIMENTALMATERIAL & METH
Page 146 and 147:
TRAVAIL EXPERIMENTALthrough a grade
Page 148 and 149:
Figure 5ABCDVilli height (µm)5432a
Page 150 and 151:
TRAVAIL EXPERIMENTALRESULTS1) Histo
Page 152 and 153:
Figure 8ILEUM2.01.6TNF-αbbb2.52.0I
Page 154 and 155:
TRAVAIL EXPERIMENTAL3) Intestinal i
Page 156 and 157:
TRAVAIL EXPERIMENTALtreated group t
Page 158 and 159:
TRAVAIL EXPERIMENTALThe potencial e
Page 160 and 161:
TRAVAIL EXPERIMENTALQuantification
Page 162 and 163:
Figure 10 :(a) Réaction de deesté
Page 164 and 165:
TRAVAIL EXPERIMENTALrévélé de l
Page 166 and 167:
TRAVAIL EXPERIMENTALABSTRACTFumonis
Page 168 and 169:
TRAVAIL EXPERIMENTALintestinal leve
Page 170 and 171:
TRAVAIL EXPERIMENTAL3) Experimental
Page 172 and 173:
TRAVAIL EXPERIMENTALthe importance
Page 174 and 175:
Figure 11 : Effects of FB1 and HFB1
Page 176 and 177:
Table 15 : Effects of FB1 and HFB1
Page 178 and 179:
Table 17 : Effects of FB1 and HFB1
Page 180 and 181:
TRAVAIL EXPERIMENTALDISCUSSIONThe a
Page 182 and 183:
TRAVAIL EXPERIMENTALassociated lymp
Page 184 and 185:
TRAVAIL EXPERIMENTALHartinger et al
Page 186 and 187:
Figure 13 :(a) Transformation par v
Page 188 and 189:
Figure 14 :Illustrations de la proc
Page 190 and 191:
Figure 15 :Plan expérimental de la
Page 192 and 193:
TRAVAIL EXPERIMENTAL4) Analyses du
Page 194 and 195:
TRAVAIL EXPERIMENTAL9) Analyses sta
Page 196 and 197:
TRAVAIL EXPERIMENTALRESULTATS1) Eff
Page 198 and 199:
TRAVAIL EXPERIMENTAL2) Effet des ag
Page 200 and 201:
TRAVAIL EXPERIMENTALb,cca,ba,b,da,d
Page 202 and 203:
TRAVAIL EXPERIMENTALL’exposition
Page 204 and 205:
Figure 21 : Effet de l’exposition
Page 206 and 207:
1,41,21,00,80,60,40,20,0IL‐8a,cc
Page 208 and 209:
TRAVAIL EXPERIMENTALDISCUSSIONLes o
Page 210 and 211:
TRAVAIL EXPERIMENTALœdèmes pulmon
Page 212 and 213:
DISCUSSIONGENERALE160
Page 214 and 215:
DISCUSSION GENERALEDans ce travail
Page 216 and 217:
DISCUSSION GENERALEdes vaches laiti
Page 218 and 219:
Tableau 24 : Analyse de denrées ag
Page 220 and 221:
DISCUSSION GENERALEet al., 2008b).
Page 222 and 223:
DISCUSSION GENERALE• une réactio
Page 224 and 225:
DISCUSSION GENERALE2. Les systèmes
Page 226 and 227:
DISCUSSION GENERALEMycoplasma agala
Page 228 and 229:
DISCUSSION GENERALEoptimale. Les au
Page 230 and 231:
DISCUSSION GENERALEsphingomyéline
Page 232 and 233:
DISCUSSION GENERALEsignalisation ce
Page 234 and 235:
DISCUSSION GENERALEL’IMMUNITÉ IN
Page 236 and 237:
DISCUSSION GENERALEplus spécifique
Page 238 and 239:
DISCUSSION GENERALEsouligner que le
Page 240 and 241:
DISCUSSION GENERALELA CARBOXYLESTER
Page 242 and 243:
DISCUSSION GENERALEde HFB1. Toutefo
Page 244 and 245:
CONCLUSIONS184
Page 246 and 247:
CONCLUSIONSLes effets d’expositio
Page 248 and 249:
CONCLUSIONSest utilisée lorsque la
Page 250 and 251:
REFERENCES BIBLIOGRAPHIQUESAABDEL-W
Page 252 and 253:
REFERENCES BIBLIOGRAPHIQUESBHANDARI
Page 254 and 255:
REFERENCES BIBLIOGRAPHIQUESCASADO,
Page 256 and 257:
REFERENCES BIBLIOGRAPHIQUESDEGIRMEN
Page 258 and 259:
REFERENCES BIBLIOGRAPHIQUESETIENNE,
Page 260 and 261:
REFERENCES BIBLIOGRAPHIQUESGRENIER,
Page 262 and 263:
REFERENCES BIBLIOGRAPHIQUESHERZALLA
Page 264 and 265:
REFERENCES BIBLIOGRAPHIQUESKERKADI,
Page 266 and 267:
REFERENCES BIBLIOGRAPHIQUESKUMAR, M
Page 268 and 269:
REFERENCES BIBLIOGRAPHIQUESMARZOCCO
Page 270 and 271:
REFERENCES BIBLIOGRAPHIQUESODHAV, B
Page 272 and 273:
REFERENCES BIBLIOGRAPHIQUESPFOHL-LE
Page 274 and 275:
REFERENCES BIBLIOGRAPHIQUESREFAI, M
Page 276 and 277:
REFERENCES BIBLIOGRAPHIQUESSCHWARTZ
Page 278 and 279:
REFERENCES BIBLIOGRAPHIQUESSWANSON,
Page 280 and 281:
REFERENCES BIBLIOGRAPHIQUESVEKIRU,
Page 282 and 283:
REFERENCES BIBLIOGRAPHIQUESYAN, D.,
show all

Effet chez le porcelet d'une exposition Ã un rÃ©gime co-contaminÃ© en ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?