4.4 Review

Mycotoxic nephropathy in Bulgarian pigs and chickens: complex aetiology and similarity to Balkan Endemic Nephropathy

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02652030903207227

关键词

high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC); mycology; screening assays; toxicology - animal study; fumonisins; mycotoxins; mycotoxins - fungi; mycotoxins - ochratoxin A; animal feed

资金

  1. Marie Curie Outgoing International Fellowship within the 6th European Community Framework Programme
  2. Department of Science and Technology in South Africa, UK
  3. Royal Society Joint Project with Central and Eastern Europe
  4. Foundation of Ministry of Science and Education of Bulgaria

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Spontaneous nephropathy in Bulgaria, which is observed frequently during meat inspection and which differs morphologically from the classical description of mycotoxic porcine/chicken nephropathy as made in Denmark, was found to have a multi-mycotoxic aetiology being mainly provoked by a combined effect of ochratoxin A, penicillic acid and fumonisin B1 in addition to a not-yet-known metabolite. Mean contamination levels of ochratoxin A were consecutively low (188.8 and 376.4 mu g kg-1) in contrast to high contamination levels of fumonisin B1 (5564.1 and 3254.5 mu g kg-1) and penicillic acid (838.6 and 904.9 mu g kg-1) for 2006 and 2007, respectively. Some other mycotoxins with lower importance such as citrinin, penitrem A, etc., may also influence clinicopathological picture of this nephropathy. A heavy contamination with Gibberella fujikuroi var. moniliformis (Fusarium verticillioides) and Penicillium aurantiogriseum complex (mainly Penicillium polonicum) was observed in almost all examined feed samples coming from pig and chick farms with nephropathy problems from Bulgaria. In contrast, low contamination with Aspergillus ochraceus, Penicillium verrucosum and Penicillium citrinum was observed in the same feed samples and these species were isolated as very rare components of the mycobiota.

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

4.4
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