ArticleBMC microbiology2025
Integrative computational modeling framework linking mycotoxin contamination, microbial hazards, and antimicrobial resistance risk in dairy systems.
Article in BMC microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMilk can sometimes carry harmful mycotoxins, which pose health risks, especially in hot and humid areas. We collected samples from both farms and households in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), Pakistan, to see how common these toxins are, whether the genes that make them are present, and which environmental factors might make contamination worse.
methodsWe tested raw milk for aflatoxins (AFM1, AFM2), ochratoxin A (OTA), and zearalenone (ZEN) using TLC, HPLC, and UHPLC-MS/MS. All testing procedures were validated following ICH Q2(R2), ISO 17025, and FDA guidance. PCR was applied to check for the genes aflC, otaA, and zen1. We then combined chemical, molecular, microbial, and environmental data and used multivariate statistics and PLS-DA modeling to find the main factors driving contamination.
resultsMilk from farms had higher mycotoxin levels than household milk. Average AFM1 concentrations were [Formula: see text]g/kg in farm milk and [Formula: see text]g/kg in domestic milk (p < 0.001). AFM2 and OTA showed similar patterns, while ZEN was below detection in all samples. UHPLC-MS/MS confirmed the HPLC findings and offered greater sensitivity. The genes aflC and otaA were found in 68% of farm samples and were strongly linked to AFM1 and OTA levels, while zen1 was absent. High temperature (over 28°C) and humidity (over 75%) were associated with increased contamination. PLS-DA modeling effectively distinguished high- and low-risk samples (AUC = 0.92), highlighting AFM1 concentration, aflC presence, and humidity as key predictors.
conclusionsCombining chemical testing, gene screening, and environmental monitoring provides a practical way to detect and evaluate mycotoxin risk in milk. Farm milk showed higher contamination than household milk, emphasizing the need for targeted monitoring and preventive measures. Identifying environmental thresholds and risk factors can support early interventions to improve food safety and protect public health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.