4.7 Article

Screening of Pig-Derived Zearalenone-Degrading Bacteria through the Zearalenone Challenge Model, and Their Degradation Characteristics

期刊

TOXINS
卷 14, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/toxins14030224

关键词

zearalenone; Proteus mirabilis; Bacillus subtilis; pig-derived zearalenone-degrading strains; zearalenone challenge pig model

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Heilongjiang Province of China [LH2021C038]
  2. National Key R&D Program of China [2018YFD0501202, 2016YFD0501207]
  3. Chinese Agriculture Research System [CARS-35]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study screened ZEN-degrading bacterial strains from fecal samples using a zearalenone challenge pig model and investigated their degradation characteristics. The results showed that the ZEN challenge model was an effective method for screening ZEN-degrading bacteria.
Zearalenone (ZEN) is widely found in food and feed. Its cytotoxicity, reproductive toxicity, genetic toxicity, immunotoxicity and hepatorenal toxicity have serious impacts on human and animal health. In order to help animals avoid ZEN poisoning in feed, ZEN-degrading bacterial strains were screened from fecal samples through a zearalenone challenge pig model, and their degradation characteristics were researched. Through the optimization of parameters such as the culture time, pH value, temperature, and strain concentration, the optimal conditions for the ZEN-degrading ability of these strains were preliminarily determined, and the active site of the ZEN degradation was explored. In this study, three strains (SY-3, SY-14, SY-20) with high ZEN degradation capacities were obtained. SY-3 was identified as Proteus mirabilis, and its main degrading component was the supernatant. SY-14 and SY-20 were identified as Bacillus subtilis. Their main degrading components were the intracellular fluid of SY-14, and the intracellular fluid and cell wall of SY-20. The above results showed that the ZEN challenge model was an effective way to screen ZEN-degrading bacteria.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据