Anti-Aflatoxin B1/B2 monoclonal antibody, clone 4602

Aflatoxins, and particularly aflatoxin B1 (AFB1), are toxic mycotoxins to humans and farm animal species, resulting in acute and chronic toxicities. At present, AFB1 is still considered a global concern with negative impacts on health, the economy, and social life. In farm animals, exposure to AFB1-contaminated feed may cause several untoward effects, liver damage being one of the most devastating ones. In the present study, we assessed in vitro the transcriptional changes caused by AFB1 in a bovine fetal hepatocyte-derived cell line (BFH12). To boost the cellular response to AFB1, cells were pre-treated with the co-planar PCB 3,3 ',4,4 ',5-pentachlorobiphenyl (PCB126), a known aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist. Three experimental groups were considered: cells exposed to the vehicle only, to PCB126, and to PCB126 and AFB1. A total of nine RNA-seq libraries (three replicates/group) were constructed and sequenced. The differential expression analysis showed that PCB126 induced only small transcriptional changes. On the contrary, AFB1 deeply affected the cell transcriptome, the majority of significant genes being associated with cancer, cellular damage and apoptosis, inflammation, bioactivation, and detoxification pathways. Investigating mRNA perturbations induced by AFB1 in cattle BFH12 cells will help us to better understand AFB1 toxicodynamics in this susceptible and economically important food-producing species.

This investigation provides an important insight into the Central and Eastern European food industry, beyond traditional food safety management and reflects on its food safety (FS) climate or the human route of its FS culture. Investigation was conducted in 10 Central and Eastern European countries involving more than 500 food companies. Overall FS climate was assessed as good. The availability of infrastructure was perceived the same in all countries although "resources" was the lowest scored climate component. Uncertainty avoiding national cultures had a stronger preference towards written FS procedures and instructions. FS climate was better assessed in bigger companies because small companies observed weaker availability of resources, smaller number of procedures and instructions and reduced risk awareness. FS communication and commitment were not affected by company size. The share of food companies without FS system was five times higher in small compared to big companies. No effect of FS management level or riskiness level on FS climate scores was apparent. Food companies seemed to avoid problems in cooperation and trust between FS leaders and other employees, since they have perceived FS climate similarly. The strongest FS climate segmentation in Central and Eastern Europe food companies was observed in terms of the EU membership status. EU operating food companies managed to develop a very good and distinctive FS climate, with better-perceived leadership, communication, commitment, resources and risk awareness than non-EU food companies. Transitional economic environment of non-EU countries have undesirably influenced the organisational and technological support in their companies and employees perceptions of FS climate.