Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T19:44:12.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Urinary excretion of aflatoxin M1 after administration of aflatoxin B1 in sucrose- or starch-rich diets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

A. Wise ,
M. Suzangar ,
M. Messripour  and
J. Mohammadi
A. Wise
Affiliation:
Regional Mycotoxin Centre and Department of Biochemistry and Nutrition, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
M. Suzangar
Affiliation:
Regional Mycotoxin Centre and Department of Biochemistry and Nutrition, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
M. Messripour
Affiliation:
Regional Mycotoxin Centre and Department of Biochemistry and Nutrition, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
J. Mohammadi
Affiliation:
Regional Mycotoxin Centre and Department of Biochemistry and Nutrition, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Male Sprague–Dawley rats were given 630 g/kg sucrose or starch with 2 mg/kg aflatoxin B1 for periods of 75, 145 and 200 d, and the 24 h urinary excretion of aflatoxin M1 was measured.

2. Less aflatoxin M1 was excreted by the rats fed on the sucrose-rich diet compared to those fed on the starch-rich diet. This difference was especially marked when expressed per g metabolizing tissue.

3. It is concluded that sucrose probably decreases the activity of aflatoxin B1 metabolism in a similar way to its previously found effect on the drug-metabolizing enzyme.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , September 1978 , pp. 397 - 401
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1978

References

Association of Official Analytical Chemists (1975). Official Methods of Analysis. no. 26, 83. Washington D.C.: Association of Official Analytical Chemists.Google Scholar
Basu, T. K., Dickerson, J. W. T. & Parke, D. V. (1975). Nutr. Metabl. 18, 302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, E. M., Dobos, I. & Taylor, F. (1970). Chemotherapy 15, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, T. C., Caedo, J. P., Bulatao-Jayme, J., Salamat, L. & Engel, R. W. (1970). Nature, Lond. 277, 403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, T. C. & Hayes, J. R. (1974). Pharmacl. Rev. 26,171.Google Scholar
Campbell, T. C. & Stoloff, L. (1974). J. agric. Fd Chem. 22, 1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalezios, J., Wogan, G. N. & Weinreb, S. M. (1971). Science, N.Y. 171, 584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maleki, M., Suzangar, M., Jamshidi, C., Tahisebi, A. & Barnett, R. (1977). Clin. Res. 24, 630.Google Scholar
Newberne, P. M. & Wogan, G. N. (1968). Cancer Res. 28, 770.Google Scholar
Porter, G. (1963). Animals for research, principles of breeding and management, p. 21 [Lane-Petter, W., editor] London and New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Strother, A., Throckmorton, J. K. & Herzer, C. (1971). J. Pharmacl. exp. Therap. 179, 490.Google Scholar
Trucksess, M. W. (1976). J. Ass. Offic. Anal. Chem. 59, 722.Google Scholar
Wogan, G. N. (1973). Methods in Cancer Research, Vol. 7, p. 309. New York and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wogan, G. N., Edwards, G. S. & Shank, R. C. (1967). Cancer Res. 27, 1729.Google Scholar