4.7 Article

Multiparametric Quantitation of the Bacillus cereus Toxins Cereulide and Isocereulides A-G in Foods

期刊

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 63, 期 37, 页码 8307-8313

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.5b03705

关键词

isocereulides; cereulide; stable isotope dilution analysis; Bacillus cereus; risk assessment

资金

  1. German Ministry of Economics and Technology (via AiF) [AiF 16845 N]
  2. FEI (Forschungskreis der Ernahrungsindustrie e.V., Bonn)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Consumption of food products contaminated with cereulide (I), a toxin produced by Bacillus cereus, might cause intoxications with symptoms reported to range from indigestion pain and emesis to death. Recently, a series of structural variants, coined isocereulides A-G (2-8), were identified for the first time to be produced along with cereulide (1). The observation that isocereulide A (2) shows an similar to 8-fold increased cytotoxicity when compared to 1 urges the development of analytical tools enabling an accurate quantitation of these toxins. Therefore, a rapid, sensitive, and robust stable isotope dilution assay (SIDA) was developed for the combined quantitation of 1-8 by means of UPLC-MS/MS. On average, trueness and precision of the method were 112.5 +/- 1.8% RSD, repeatability and reproducibility were 2 and 4% for cereulide and isocereulides A-G, and the LOD and LOQ of 0.1 and 0.5 ng/g, respectively, demonstrated a high sensitivity for the developed SIDA method. Application of this method to food samples revealed elevated levels of 1-8 in two suspicious noodle samples, for example, ranging from 0.59 (7) to 189.08 ng/g (1) in sample 1 and from 5.77 (7) to 6198.17 ng/g (1) in sample 2, whereas the analysis of 25 randomly selected food samples, which have not been the subject to any complaints, did not contain detectable amounts of any of these toxins. As a consequence, this SIDA method could add an important contribution to the knowledge-based risk assessment of B. cereus toxins in foods.

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