Comparative Assessment of Different Yeast Cell Wall-Based Mycotoxin Adsorbents Using a Model- and Bioassay-Based In Vitro Approach

Abstract

Frequently reported occurrences of deoxynivalenol (DON), beauvericin (BEA), and, to a lesser extent, ochratoxin A (OTA) and citrinin (CIT) in ruminant feed or feedstuff could represent a significant concern regarding feed safety, animal health, and productivity. Inclusion of yeast cell wall-based mycotoxin adsorbents in animal feeds has been a common strategy to mitigate adverse effects of mycotoxins. In the present study, an in vitro approach combining adsorption isotherm models and bioassays was designed to assess the efficacy of yeast cell wall (YCW), yeast cell wall extract (YCWE), and a postbiotic yeast cell wall-based blend (PYCW) products at the inclusion rate of 0.5% (w/v) (ratio of adsorbent mass to buffer solution volume). The Hill’s adsorption isotherm model was found to best describe the adsorption processes of DON, BEA, and CIT. Calculated binding potential for YCW and YCWE using the Hill’s model exhibited the same ranking for mycotoxin adsorption, indicating that BEA had the highest adsorption rate, followed by DON and CIT, which was the least adsorbed. PYCW had the highest binding potential for BEA compared with YCW and YCWE. In contrast, the Freundlich isotherm model presented a good fit for OTA adsorption by all adsorbents and CIT adsorption by PYCW. Results indicated that YCW was the most efficacious for sequestering OTA, whereas YCWE was the least efficacious. PYCW showed greater efficacy at adsorbing OTA than CIT. All adsorbents exhibited high adsorption efficacy for BEA, with an overall percentage average of bound mycotoxin exceeding 60%, whereas moderate efficacies for the other mycotoxins were observed (up to 37%). Differences in adsorbent efficacy of each adsorbent significantly varied according to experimental concentrations tested for each given mycotoxin (p < 0.05). The cell viability results from the bioassay using a bovine mammary epithelial cell line (MAC-T) indicated that all tested adsorbents could potentially mitigate mycotoxin-related damage to bovine mammary epithelium. Results from our studies suggested that all tested adsorbents had the capacity to adsorb selected mycotoxins in vitro, which could support their use to mitigate their effects in vivo.

Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Yeast Cell Wall Extract Supple-Mentation during Mycotoxin Challenges on the Performance of Laying Hens

“…Adsorptive properties for mycotoxins primarily occur from the β-D-glucan network present in the yeast cell wall which can generate multiple van der Waals and hydrogen bonds with mycotoxins. Research has shown YCWE to have adsorptive properties for numerous mycotoxins including but not limited to AFB1, DON, T2, FUM, ZEA, emerging mycotoxins, and Penicillium mycotoxins [ 11 , 14 , 38 ]. Recently, two meta-analyses have been published demonstrating the use of YCWE during mycotoxin challenges for broilers and growing pigs [ 28 , 29 ].…”

Adsorption of Zearalenone by Aureobasidium pullulans Autolyzed Biomass Preparation and Its Detoxification Properties in Cultures of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Yeast

“…Yeast cell wall proteins most often occur in the form of glycoproteins, mainly in its outer layer [ 25 ]. The mentioned cell wall polysaccharides and proteins are important for mycotoxin binding by yeast-based adsorbents [ 26 ]. The structural components of the A. pullulans cell wall are similar to those described for S. cerevisiae , which is the best known yeast in this regard [ 27 , 28 ].…”

Molecular simulation of CO production and adsorption in a coal–kaolinite composite gangue slit model

“…18 In order to characterize the mathematical relationship between adsorption capacity and adsorption conditions and analyze the microscopic mechanism of gas adsorption, The Freundlich adsorption equation was used for characterization, and its expression is shown as eqn (2): y = ax bx (− c ) where y is the adsorption capacity, a and b are the adsorption coefficients and c is the power parameter. 19 The range of application of this equation is wider than that of the Langmuir equation, which is suitable for a calculation of inorganic small molecule adsorption like CO. 20,21…”

“…where y is the adsorption capacity, a and b are the adsorption coefficients and c is the power parameter. 19 The range of application of this equation is wider than that of the Langmuir equation, which is suitable for a calculation of inorganic small molecule adsorption like CO. 20,21 Other than that, to better reveal the diffusion law of CO in the coal gangue and to assess the diffusivity of CO in coal gangue slit structures, the MSD and Einstein equations have been used to calculate the self-diffusion coefficient of CO in coal gangue models. This diffusion property is closely related to the type of material, diffusion medium and applied conditions.…”