| Literature DB >> 35202113 |
Madhu Kamle1, Dipendra Kumar Mahato2, Akansha Gupta3, Shikha Pandhi3, Nitya Sharma4, Bharti Sharma3, Sadhna Mishra3,5, Shalini Arora6, Raman Selvakumar7, Vivek Saurabh8, Jyoti Dhakane-Lad9, Manoj Kumar10, Sreejani Barua11,12, Arvind Kumar3, Shirani Gamlath2, Pradeep Kumar1.
Abstract
Citrinin (CIT) is a mycotoxin produced by different species of Aspergillus, Penicillium, and Monascus. CIT can contaminate a wide range of foods and feeds at any time during the pre-harvest, harvest, and post-harvest stages. CIT can be usually found in beans, fruits, fruit and vegetable juices, herbs and spices, and dairy products, as well as red mold rice. CIT exerts nephrotoxic and genotoxic effects in both humans and animals, thereby raising concerns regarding the consumption of CIT-contaminated food and feed. Hence, to minimize the risk of CIT contamination in food and feed, understanding the incidence of CIT occurrence, its sources, and biosynthetic pathways could assist in the effective implementation of detection and mitigation measures. Therefore, this review aims to shed light on sources of CIT, its prevalence in food and feed, biosynthetic pathways, and genes involved, with a major focus on detection and management strategies to ensure the safety and security of food and feed.Entities:
Keywords: citrinin; detection and management strategies; food and feed contamination; human health
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35202113 PMCID: PMC8874403 DOI: 10.3390/toxins14020085
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Toxins (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6651 Impact factor: 4.546
Major citrinin producers among fungal species in foodstuffs.
| Genera | Subgenus | Series | Species |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| - | |
|
| Expansa | ||
|
| Corymbifera | ||
|
| Verrucosa | ||
|
| - | ||
|
| - | ||
|
| - | - | |
| - | - | ||
| - | - |
| |
|
| - | ||
|
| - | - | |
| - | - |
Figure 1Chemical structures of citrinin and its decomposition products citrinin H1 and citrinin H2.
Figure 2Schematic illustration of biosynthesis of CIT (adopted from He and Cox [5]).
Occurrence of citrinin in food and feed around the world.
| Food Matrix | Country | Range (μg/kg) | Detection Technique | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amaranth | Spain | 1.8–5.9 | QuEChERS | [ |
| Apples | Portugal | 320–920 | SPE-HPLC | [ |
| Portugal | 3.06–5.37 | TLC | [ | |
| China | 1.7–16.3 | UPLC-MS/MS | [ | |
| Croatia | 240 | TLC | [ | |
| Almond | Spain | 3.0–7.4 | UHPLC-MS/MS | [ |
| India | 2.80–18.20 | ELISA | [ | |
| Barley | Czech Republic | 93.64 | HPLC | [ |
| Black Pepper | India | 17.8 | LC-MS/MS | [ |
| Black olives | Turkey | 350 | TLC | [ |
| Morocco | 0.2–0.5 | HPLC | [ | |
| Breakfast cereals | France | 1.5–42 | HPLC-FD | [ |
| France | 0.5–1.5 | HPLC | [ | |
| Brown rice | Spain | 6.4–10 | QuEChERS | [ |
| Buckwheat | Spain | 1.5–6.9 | QuEChERS | [ |
| Spain | 0.62 | LC-MS/MS | [ | |
| Cashew | India | 4.70–9.80 | ELISA | [ |
| Cajna salami | Croatia | <1.0–1.0 | HPLC | [ |
| Cereals | Belgium | 14.3 | UHPLC-MS/MS | [ |
| Croatia | 19.63 | HPLC-FD | [ | |
| Cereal solid substrates | Poland | 5.7–74.8 | HPLC-FLD | [ |
| Cereals and derivatives | Germany | <1–2.7 | HPLC-FD | [ |
| Cocoa | Belgium | 3.4 | UHPLC-MS/MS | [ |
| Coriander | India | 23.0 | LC-MS/MS | [ |
| Commercial beers | South Africa | 6 | TLC | [ |
| Cumin | India | 14.7 | LC-MS/MS | [ |
| Dried grape | Turkey | 5.56 | HPLC-FD | [ |
| Dried white mulberry | Turkey | 4.26–5.29 | HPLC-FD | [ |
| Dry ginger | India | 19.4 | LC-MS/MS | [ |
| Family Cereal | Nigeria | 1.2–151 | LC-MS/MS | [ |
| Fermented dry meat products | Croatia | <1.0–1.3 | ELISA | [ |
| Fenugreek | India | 17.2 | LC-MS/MS | [ |
| Fruits | China | 0.06–0.10 | QuEChERS-HPLC-FLD | [ |
| Grape | China | 0.16 | USAE-DLLME-HPLC-FLD | [ |
| Ground rice | China | 5–100 | HPLC-DAD | [ |
| Hazelnut | Spain | 3.1–8.0 | UHPLC-MS/MS | [ |
| Industrially-processed complementary foods | Nigeria | 1.2–151 | LC-MS/MS | [ |
| Infant formula | Nigeria | 3.6 | LC-MS/MS | [ |
| Koji rice | USA | 50–1000 | IAC-HPLC | [ |
| Lager beer | Czech Republic | 0.2–10 | SPE-HPLC | [ |
| Liquorice root | Turkey | 14.66–19.14 | HPLC-FD | [ |
| Monascus pigment powder | China | 122–594 | RP-HPLC | [ |
| Maize | Serbia | 5–547 | LC-MS/MS | [ |
| China | 4.71–18.49 | ic-ELISA | [ | |
| Mozambique/Burkina Faso | 531–5074 | LC-MS/MS | [ | |
| Macadamia nut | Spain | 3.3–7.3 | UHPLC-MS/MS | [ |
| Medicinal and aromatic herbs | Spain | 16.5 | ELISA | [ |
| Mushroom | USA | 400 | IAC-HPLC | [ |
| Ogi | Nigeria | 0.8–159 | LC-MS/MS | [ |
| Olive | China | 0.05 | IAC-HPLC-FLD | [ |
| Orange | China | 40.3 | UPLC-MS/MS | [ |
| Parboiled rice | India | 12–55 | HPLC | [ |
| Pear | China | 0.16 | USAE-DLLME-HPLC-FLD | [ |
| Peanut | Spain | 2.9–8.9 | UHPLC-MS/MS | [ |
| Pine nuts | Spain | 5.5–9.0 | UHPLC-MS/MS | [ |
| Pumpkin seed | Spain | 2.6–7.3 | UHPLC-MS/MS | [ |
| Pistachio | Spain | 4.4–8.5 | UHPLC-MS/MS | [ |
| India | 4.57–15.80 | ELISA | [ | |
| Quinoa | Spain | 5.3–6.9 | QuEChERS | [ |
| Raisin | India | 2.84–17.40 | ELISA | [ |
| Red chilli | India | 12.5 | LC-MS/MS | [ |
| Red rice | Spain | 2.8–6.2 | QuEChERS | [ |
| Malaysia | 0.23–20.65 | ELISA | [ | |
| Red kojic rice | China | 50 | HPLC-FD | [ |
| Japan | 200 | MFEI | [ | |
| China | 100 | IAC | [ | |
| Red mold rice | USA | 50–2500 | IAC-HPLC | [ |
| Malaysia | 0.23–20.65 | HPLC | [ | |
| USA | 24–189 | HPLC-UV | [ | |
| Taiwan | 5742–27,000 | HPLC-FLD | [ | |
| China | 49–13,550 | HPLC-FLD | [ | |
| China | 7.5–120 | HPLC | [ | |
| Red fermented rice | China | 140–44,240 | LC-MS/MS | [ |
| China | 0.12–5.71 | HPLC | [ | |
| Croatia | 95–98 | Rapid LC/DAD/FLD/MS | [ | |
| China | 0.14–44.24 | LC-MS/MS | [ | |
| China | 250–825 | HPLC-FLD | [ | |
| Red yeast rice | China | 2.33–32.47 | MFCI | [ |
| Belgium | 3.6–121,097 | UHPLC-MS/MS | [ | |
| China | 57.28 | HPLC-FLD | [ | |
| China | 100.6–443.6 | IAC-HPLC | [ | |
| China | 16.6–5253 | LC-MS/MS | [ | |
| Croatia | 98 | LC-MS | [ | |
| Red yeast rice powder | China | 0.10–5.41 | RP-HPLC | [ |
| Red yeast powder | China | 55 | HPLC-FD | [ |
| Red yeast rice food additives | China | 127–4960 | LC-MS/MS | [ |
| Red yeast rice functional food and medicine products | China | 16.6–62.5 | LC-MS/MS | [ |
| Rice | Argentina | 0.5–50 | ELISA | [ |
| Vietnam | 0.42 | HPLC-FLD | [ | |
| Iran | 5–21.05 | LC-MS/MS | [ | |
| Vietnam | 0.38–0.42 | UHPLC-FL | [ | |
| China | 0.11 | LLE-HPLC-FLD | [ | |
| China | 0.7–1.0 | SPME-LC-FLD | [ | |
| Spain | 5–200 | HPLC-DAD | [ | |
| Japan | 49–92 | HPLC | [ | |
| Canada | 700–1130 | HPLC | [ | |
| China | 9.65–19.85 | ic-ELISA | [ | |
| Iran | 5–21.05 | HPLC | [ | |
| India | 49–92 | HPLC | [ | |
| Sausages | Croatia | <1.0–1.0 | ELISA | [ |
| Semi-dry sausages | Croatia | <1.0 | HPLC | [ |
| Croatia | <1.0 | ELISA | [ | |
| Spices | Belgium | 1.4–19.8 | UHPLC-MS/MS | [ |
| Spelt | Spain | 2.6–10.4 | QuEChERS | [ |
| Soybean | Egypt | 270 | HPLC | [ |
| Sunflower seed | Spain | 4.6–10.2 | UHPLC-MS/MS | [ |
| Sweet cherries | China | 2.2–7.9 | UPLC-MS/MS | [ |
| Tomato | China | 1.1–8.4 | UPLC-MS/MS | [ |
| Tom bran | Nigeria | 1.7–1173 | LC-MS/MS | [ |
| Tom bran | Nigeria | 0.8–1173 | LC-MS/MS | [ |
| Walnut | Spain | 4.6–7.7 | UHPLC-MS/MS | [ |
| White rice | Spain | 4.0–6.4 | UHPLC-MS/MS | [ |
| Wheat | Tunisia | 0.1–170 | HPLC | [ |
| Canada | 175.2 | HPLC | [ | |
| China | 4.77–19.49 | ic-ELISA | [ | |
| Czech Republic | 0.09 | HPLC-FD | [ | |
| Wheat flour | Belgium | 0.1 | UHPLC-MS/MS | [ |
| Czech Republic | 19.2–2068.6 | HPLC-FD | [ | |
| Winter salami | Croatia | <1.0–1.3 | HPLC | [ |
| Feed | ||||
| Feed | Burkina Faso | 341 | LC-MS/MS | [ |
| Complete animal feeds | Belgium | 1.9–2.0 | UHPLC-MS/MS | [ |
| Maize silage | France | 1.5–5.0 | LC-MS | [ |
| Maize silage | France | 5–25 | LC-MS | [ |
| Maize silage | France | 2–1.5 | LC-MS | [ |
| Compounded feeds | Russia | 10–182 | ELISA | [ |
| Maize gluten | Russia | 62 | ELISA | [ |
| Wheat bran | Russia | 397 | ELISA | [ |
| Soy-bean oilseed meal | Russia | 30 | ELISA | [ |
UHPLC-MS/MS: Ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry; UHPLC-FL: Ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography and fluorescence detection; LLE-HPLC-FD: Liquid–liquid extraction–high performance liquid chromatography–fluorescence detector; IAC-HPLC-FD: Immunoaffinity column–high performance liquid chromatography–fluorescence detector; SPE-HPLC-FD: Solid phase microextraction–high performance liquid chromatography–fluorescence detector; QuEChERS: quick, easy cheap, effective, rugged, and safe high performance liquid chromatography–fluorescence detector; USAE-DLLME-HPLC-FLD: ultrasound solvent extraction–dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction–high performance liquid chromatography–fluorescence detector; SPE-HPLC: Solid-phase extraction–high performance liquid chromatography; MFEI: micro fluidic electrochemical immunosensor; icELISA: indirect competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; UHPLC-MS/MS: Ultra-high performance liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry: RP-HPLC: Reversed-phase HPLC; MFCI: microsphere-based flow cytometric immunoassay; IAC: Immunoaffinity columns; USAE-DLLME: ultrasound-assisted extraction combined with dispersive liquid–liquid microextraction.
Various degradation methods for controlling citrinin in food and feed.
| Degradation Methods | Experimental Details | Key Findings | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Physical | |||
| Light (Blue light) | Decreased CIT by 79%; 28.5% increase in pigment production | [ | |
| Blue light | In vivo | Blue light completely degraded the CIT | [ |
| Temperature/Heat | Heating under aquous condition | Partial degradation and formation of low cytotoxic substances; increase in temperature and time above 120 °C to form another less cytotoxic substance | [ |
| Heating/boiling | Heating at 100–140 °C in aqueous medium | High-temperature treatment degraded CIT into CIT H1 and H2 | [ |
| High hydrostatic pressure (HHP) | Time: 5 min | 90–100% of the microbial population was reduced; the CIT level was reduced up to 100%; increased phenolic compounds; enhanced antioxidant activity | [ |
| Cold atmospheric pressure plasma | Power output: 50 kV, 100 watts | Reduced 50% of CIT; no negative effect on nutrients | [ |
| Magnetic nanoparticles | Formation of a CIT–nanoparticle complex; effective in CIT removal; can be used in the food industry; is difficult to operate on a large scale | [ | |
| Ultrasonication | Power: 250 W | Removed up to 87.7% CIT from red yeast rice | [ |
| Chemical | |||
| Ozone | O3 treatment: (40 and 60 μmol/mol | CIT level reduced from 173.51 μg/kg to 42.90 μg/kg 180 min after treatment | [ |
| Medium-chain fatty acids | In vivo | Improved pigment formation; reduced CIT production in the process | [ |
| Flavanoids | Inhibition of CIT formation up to 87.9% | [ | |
| 45% ethanol, 1.5% phosphate, and extraction for 70 min | Reduced CIT level by 91.6%; maintained 79.5% monacolin K | [ | |
| Biological | |||
| Genistein | Suppressed acetyl- CoA formation; reduced CIT content; reduced significant differential metabolites | [ | |
| - | In response to CIT stress, DNA repair, antioxidative activity, and the TCA cycle were activated; degradation of CIT | [ | |
| - | Degradation up to 98%; intracellular enzyme caused degradation; degradation into less toxic compounds; degradation was factor-dependent | [ | |
|
| - | Degradaded CIT by 91.67% at pH 4.0 and 28 °C; degradation was factor-dependent | [ |
| - | Ful degradation of CIT after 10 h of incubation. | [ | |
|
| Temperature: 30 °C | [ | |
| Adsorbents | Activated charcoal and 0.4% | Ameliorated toxic effect of mycotoxin to broilers | [ |