Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25840963›Full record

ReviewPoultry science2015

Prevalence and effects of mycotoxins on poultry health and performance, and recent development in mycotoxin counteracting strategies.

G R Murugesan, D R Ledoux, K Naehrer, F Berthiller, T J Applegate, B Grenier, T D Phillips, G Schatzmayr

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Poultry science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 87 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
87citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
19.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

87 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 275 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

27 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

G R MurugesanBIOMIN America Inc, San Antonio, TX, USA gr.murugesan@gmail.com.
D R LedouxDepartment of Animal Sciences, University of Missouri-Columbia, MO, USA.
K NaehrerBIOMIN Research Center, Tulln, Austria.
F BerthillerChristian Doppler Laboratory for Mycotoxin Metabolism, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU), Tulln, Austria.
T J ApplegateDepartment of Animal Sciences, Purdue University West Lafayette, IN, USA.
B GrenierDepartment of Animal Sciences, Purdue University West Lafayette, IN, USA.
T D PhillipsTexas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA.
G SchatzmayrBIOMIN Research Center, Tulln, Austria.
Purdue University West Lafayette · USBOKU University · ATTexas A&M University · USUniversity of Missouri · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Extensive research over the last couple of decades has made it obvious that mycotoxins are commonly prevalent in majority of feed ingredients. A worldwide mycotoxin survey in 2013 revealed 81% of around 3,000 grain and feed samples analyzed had at least 1 mycotoxin, which was higher than the 10-year average (from 2004 to 2013) of 76% in a total of 25,944 samples. The considerable increase in the number of positive samples in 2013 may be due to the improvements in detection methods and their sensitivity. The recently developed liquid chromatography coupled to (tandem) mass spectrometry allows the inclusion of a high number of analytes and is the most selective, sensitive, and accurate of all the mycotoxin analytical methods. Mycotoxins can affect the animals either individually or additively in the presence of more than 1 mycotoxin, and may affect various organs such as gastrointestinal tract, liver, and immune system, essentially resulting in reduced productivity of the birds and mortality in extreme cases. While the use of mycotoxin binding agents has been a commonly used counteracting strategy, considering the great diversity in the chemical structures of mycotoxins, it is very obvious that there is no single method that can be used to deactivate mycotoxins in feed. Therefore, different strategies have to be combined in order to specifically target individual mycotoxins without impacting the quality of feed. Enzymatic or microbial detoxification, referred to as "biotransformation" or "biodetoxification," utilizes microorganisms or purified enzymes thereof to catabolize the entire mycotoxin or transform or cleave it to less or non-toxic compounds. However, the awareness on the prevalence of mycotoxins, available modern techniques to analyze them, the effects of mycotoxicoses, and the recent developments in the ways to safely eliminate the mycotoxins from the feed are very minimal among the producers. This symposium review paper comprehensively discusses the above mentioned aspects.

Indexed as

AnimalsFood ContaminationMycotoxicosisMycotoxinsPoultryPoultry DiseasesPrevalenceMycotoxinsanalysisdetoxificationgutimmune functionmycotoxicosisoccurrence

Identifiers

PMID25840963
PMCPMC4988553
OpenAlexW2119413424

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.