| Literature DB >> 33805401 |
Farhad Niknejad1, Laura Escrivá2, Khoda Berdi Adel Rad3, Masoud Khoshnia4, Francisco J Barba2, Houda Berrada2.
Abstract
A pilot study to investigate the occurrence of 10 mycotoxins (deoxynivalenol, DON; 3-acetyldeoxynivalenol, 3-ADON; 15-acetyldeoxynivalenol, 15-ADON; fusarenon-X, FUS-X; diacetoxyscirpenol, DAS; nivalenol, NIV; neosolaniol, NEO; zearalenone, ZON; zearalanone, ZAN; T-2 toxin, T-2; and HT-2 toxin, HT-2) in esophageal cancer patients was performed with the urinary biomarkers approach in Golestan, Iran. Urine multimycotoxin analysis was performed by dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction and gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (GC-MS/MS) analysis, and values were normalized with urinary creatinine (μg/g). Four mycotoxins, namely NEO (40%), HT-2 (17.6%), DON (10%), and HT-2 (5.8%), were detected in the analyzed urine samples. DON was only detected in the control group (5.09 μg/g creatinine), while T-2 (44.70 μg/g creatinine) was only present in the esophageal cancer group. NEO and HT-2 were quantified in both control and case groups, showing average of positive samples of 9.09 and 10.45 μg/g creatinine for NEO and 16.81 and 29.09 μg/g creatinine for HT-2, respectively. Mycotoxin co-occurrence was observed in three samples as binary (NEO/HT-2 and T-2/HT-2) and ternary (DON/NEO/HT-2) combinations, reaching total concentrations of 44.58, 79.13, and 30.04 µg/g creatinine, respectively. Further investigations are needed to explore a causal association between mycotoxin contamination and esophageal cancer. For this pilot study in Golestan, the low sample size was a very limiting factor.Entities:
Keywords: GC–MS/MS; esophageal cancer; mycotoxins; urine biomarkers
Year: 2021 PMID: 33805401 PMCID: PMC8065391 DOI: 10.3390/toxins13040243
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Toxins (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6651 Impact factor: 4.546
Incidence; minimum, maximum, and mean mycotoxin concentrations (µg/L) with SD; and creatinine-corrected mean value (µg/g creat) of each detected mycotoxin in the control and esophageal cancer case groups.
| Population Group | Parameters | DON | NEO | T-2 | HT-2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Positive samples | 1 | 4 | - | 1 |
| Incidence (%) | 10 | 40 | - | 10 | |
| Min ± SD (µg/L) | - | 10.57 ± 0.33 | - | - | |
| Max ± SD (µg/L) | - | 22.53 ± 2.39 | - | ||
| Mean ± SD (µg/L) | 8.42 ± 1.21 | 14.15 ± 5.72 | - | 23.97 ± 9.97 | |
| Corrected mean (µg/g creat) | 5.90 | 10.45 | - | 16.81 | |
| Esophageal cancer | Positive samples | - | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Incidence (%) | - | 5.8 | 5.8 | 17.6 | |
| Min ± SD (µg/L) | - | - | - | 18.91 ± 3.05 | |
| Max ± SD (µg/L) | - | - | - | 50.38 ± 22.54 | |
| Mean ± SD (µg/L) | - | 12.90 ± 3.87 | 50.09 ± 7.51 | 36.52 ± 16.07 | |
| Corrected mean (µg/g creat) | - | 9.09 | 44.70 | 29.09 |
Figure 1Selected-reaction monitoring (SRM) chromatograms of a case study sample positive for neosolaniol (NEO) and HT-2 toxin (HT-2) indicating the chemical structure and the quantitation (Q) and confirmation (q) transitions for both compounds.
Co-occurrence of mycotoxins in the analyzed urine samples.
| Mycotoxin(s) | Incidence (%) | Sample Group | Ʃ Mycotoxin | Ʃ Mycotoxin |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Binary Combination | ||||
| NEO/HT-2 | 1/27 (3.7) | Case | 63.27 | 44.58 |
| T2/HT-2 | 1/27 (3.7) | Case | 90.38 | 79.13 |
| Ternary Combination | ||||
| DON/NEO/HT2 | 1/27 (3.7) | Control | 42.82 | 30.04 |
Optimized parameters for gas chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (GC–MS/MS) analysis of the selected mycotoxins.
| Mycotoxin | RT (min) | Quantitation Transition (CE, eV) | Quantitation Transition Dt (ms) | Confirmation Transition | Confirmation Transition | Ion Ratio (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DON | 8.39 | 392 > 259 (10) | 25 | 407 > 197 (10) | 25 | 41.6 |
| 3-ADON | 9.40 | 392 > 287 (5) | 35 | 467 > 147 (10) | 25 | 47.5 |
| 15-ADON | 9.58 | 392 > 217 (20) | 35 | 392 > 184 (20) | 20 | 35.5 |
| FUS-X | 9.484 | 450 > 260 (10) | 35 | 450 > 245 (20) | 35 | 11.9 |
| NIV | 9.867 | 289 > 73 (15) | 35 | 379 > 73 (15) | 35 | 29.6 |
| NEO | 11.22 | 252 > 195 (10) | 25 | 252 > 167 (15) | 35 | 40.6 |
| T-2 | 13.891 | 399 > 109 (10) | 25 | 399 > 123 (15) | 35 | 81.9 |
| HT-2 | 14.334 | 347 > 185 (10) | 25 | 347 > 157 (10) | 25 | 86.7 |
| ZAN | 14.669 | 449 > 335 (15) | 25 | 307 > 235 (10) | 25 | 59.9 |
| ZON | 15.387 | 462 >333 (20) | 25 | 462 > 151 (20) | 25 | 99.7 |
RT: retention time; CE: collision energy; Dt: dwell time.
Main validation parameters for the studied mycotoxins.
| Mycotoxin | Linearity (r2) | LOD (µg/L) | LOQ (µg/L) | Matrix Effect (% SSE) | Recovery Range (%) | Intraday Precision Range (%RSD) | Interday Precision Range (%RSD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DON | 0.996 | 0.12 | 0.25 | 23 | 88−97 | 2−4 | 8−10 |
| 3-ADON | 0.992 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 27 | 84−102 | 1−9 | 4−11 |
| 15-ADON | 0.991 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 28 | 77−91 | 2−10 | 3−12 |
| FUS-X | 0.992 | 2 | 4 | 12 | 83−95 | 3−6 | 6−13 |
| NIV | 0.996 | 0.5 | 1 | 6 | 82−95 | 3−7 | 4−7 |
| NEO | 0.999 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 36 | 93−109 | 5−7 | 3−11 |
| T-2 | 0.998 | 0.5 | 1 | 8 | 89−104 | 4−5 | 8−10 |
| HT-2 | 0.999 | 1 | 2 | 28 | 92−105 | 1−6 | 6−9 |
| ZAN | 0.993 | 4 | 8 | 36 | 72−80 | 2−5 | 5−12 |
| ZON | 0.991 | 3 | 6 | 23 | 79−96 | 6−7 | 8−11 |
Figure 2SRM chromatograms of the 10 studied mycotoxins from a urine sample fortified at 200 µg/L of each mycotoxin, as well as the chemical structure and the transitions used for quantitation (Q) and confirmation (q) transitions for each mycotoxin.