️MycoTalks- 3 | Understanding Binding Dynamics and Validating Toxin Binder Efficacy

[00:00:06][music] >> Hello everyone. Welcome to episode 3 of Myco Talks. I am Sakshi Sawhney, product manager for toxin binder solutions. If you look at today's industry, the toxin contamination challenges are becoming increasingly complex with changing raw material quality, co-occurrence of multiple mycotoxins, and evolving risk patterns. So, in this scenario, selecting the right toxin mitigation strategy becomes more important than ever. In this episode of Myco Talks, we will be discovering the science behind modern toxin binder solutions, the importance of scientific validations, and the key factors that truly defines the effectiveness of toxin mitigation solutions. Along with Dr. Rahul Mitel, group product manager with Kemin Industries South Asia. Welcome to the podcast.

[00:01:13]As the contamination continues to evolve, so as toxin binder technologies have also advanced significantly, moving beyond the conventional approaches towards more scientific validation approaches. So, in your opinion, sir, how important is the scientifically validated approaches like biphasic binding, in vitro studies, and in vivo excretion studies important in assessing the efficacy of toxin binders?

[00:01:38]>> If you look at toxin binders, how they are evaluated today, most of the toxin binders are just evaluated on the basis of in vitro binding at one particular pH.

[00:01:51]But if you look at poultry gut, poultry gut has different pH, keeps increasing from acidic pH to towards more neutral and towards more alkaline pH.

[00:02:02]And if you look at it's a generic uh technologies of bentonite montmorillonite, they have more efficacy in acidic environments.

[00:02:14]So, the mycotoxins which are present in the acidic environment and let's say gizzard or proventriculus, the clay is able to bind or bind strongly to them.

[00:02:26]But what happens as the pH increases, we see a lot of desorption happening of these mycotoxins, which are then obviously available for absorption in the gut. So, the damage is not exactly >> [music] >> removed from these mycotoxin binders.

[00:02:44]What our approach is to check at both acidic pH and then 6.8 pH or 7 pH approaching 7.

[00:02:54]What it helps us in understanding is to calculate the absolute net binding percentage. So, absolute net binding percentage is the binding happening at acidic pH at around 3 and then what is the desorption that is happening at 6.8 pH. Then it is subtracted from that and then we calculate the percentage net binding.

[00:03:16]That gives a closer indication of efficacy of any toxin binder. So, this is this is an improved approach towards checking the efficacy.

[00:03:29]It because it closely replicates what's happening in the poultry gut.

[00:03:33]Although in vitro net binding study by phase net binding study is good to understand the binding percentage, is it is good to compare various toxin binders efficacy, it's not the hallmark of testing efficacy again.

[00:03:50]If you move towards more, you know, better standards of uh analyzing toxin binders, in vivo excretion study is one which actually does a much better job because that is what we are testing in animal in our poultry birds.

[00:04:07]And with this approach, what we do is we uh take the birds and we do metabolic we put them in metabolic cages.

[00:04:15]We feed them with the contaminated feed where we know the exact amount of mycotoxins that's getting into bird's body.

[00:04:24]We feed it along with the uh practical dosages of toxin binder that we want to test.

[00:04:32]And then we check in the excreta how much is being excreted.

[00:04:36]So, then we get a real understanding of how much is actually being excreted out of the body.

[00:04:43]That clearly indicates the efficacy of toxin binders. So, definitely when we are going with these two approaches, then it gives a more clearer picture in terms of deciding what kind of toxin binder is uh more effective against that combination.

[00:05:04]>> So, does it mean that you are evaluating the efficacy of toxin binders in both in vitro and in in vivo conditions is very important?

[00:05:11]>> Yes. And that too by these specific methods where you are doing a biphasic net binding and an in vivo excretion study.

[00:05:24]>> Hydrophobicity is not so oftenly discussed in toxin binder technologies.

[00:05:28]So, how hydrophobic interactions influence the binding of different mycotoxins?

[00:05:33]>> If you look at more simpler or more planar molecules like aflatoxin B1 which are easily bound by our conventional technologies like montmorillonite or bentonites, The same case is not with the other micro toxins.

[00:05:52]Other micro toxins are require a different kind of interaction and because those are not more plain molecules, right? They are more complex [music] molecules that needs a different kind of technology in order to bind them.

[00:06:09]>> Okay.

[00:06:10]>> So if you look at the hydrophobicity principle, what it means is in any kind of clay >> Mhm.

[00:06:18]>> there is a silica and alumina ratio which makes up the clay.

[00:06:23]As the hydrophobicity increases of a clay molecule the silica alumina ratio also increases.

[00:06:31]So more the silica alumina ratio we get binding efficacy for multiple micro toxins, even for pesticides or some chemical toxicants.

[00:06:41]So if you look at bentonite for an example has a lower silica alumina ratio. That means lower hydrophobicity. Good for aflatoxin kind of molecules.

[00:06:55]As we move towards little bit, you know, 15:1 ratio of silica alumina we get something we get binding for some other micro toxins like ochratoxin, zearalenone.

[00:07:09]And then we move towards even further at around 25:1 or more silica alumina ratio. The hydrophobicity is very high.

[00:07:19]This hydrophobicity allows for binding towards more complex molecules like chemical intoxicants like pesticides for that example.

[00:07:28]And some other forms of other more complicated micro toxins. Now hydrophobicity again, what it provides, it provides like coming from my previous question, hydrophobicity also provides [music] the strength in the bond of mycotoxin and the clay particle.

[00:07:49]The strength of binding is very important because as we [music] move towards neutral pH or alkaline pH, there is a high level of desorption. So, we have to make sure that the bonds are not just van der Waals interactions, they are not just hydrogen bonds.

[00:08:04]But they are hydrophobic bonds, which are the strongest bonds in this interaction.

[00:08:11]So, that's why once the molecule is combined or bounded by the clay material, it should not leave it.

[00:08:20]That is what That is where hydrophobicity principle becomes very important for toxin binders.

[00:08:26]So, if you look at Toxin Binder 360, which basically has a technology, which is a patented technology by Kemin uh It's called synthetic tectosilicates.

[00:08:38]Synthetic tectosilicates are basically having higher hydrophobicity or these tectosilicates are designed in a certain way that [music] their hydrophobicity is quite high.

[00:08:50]So, based on the principle of getting that stronger binding, uh Toxin Binder 360 or synthetic tectosilicate technology is a choice for us.

[00:09:05]>> So, you mentioned about synthetic tectosilicates. So, what makes it a unique approach compared to the conventional toxin binder solutions?

[00:09:13]>> Like I said, see Toxin Binder 360 or synthetic tectosilicates in general is a tectosilicate.

[00:09:20]And it's a modified form of tectosilicate. It's not a natural zeolite that occurs. It's a modified form of synthetic tectosilicates, which is prepared in labs, okay?

[00:09:33]And why it is very important that we need to design it or we need to modify it because the principle of interaction with mycotoxin is Let me give you an analogy.

[00:09:46]How it happens. So, if you look at phylosilicates, which are bentonites, montmorillonites, they were they are more like, you know, multi-level parking. Okay? So, the car, which are basically mycotoxins, are parked between the layers of or between different floors uh by electrostatic uh interactions.

[00:10:07]So, that's the only space where the binding happens. If you look at synthetic tectosilicates, these are more like a sponge you can think of, where you have pore size pores uh there. The interaction happens inside the pores and also on the surface because the surface area automatically increases uh inside the pores and also outside the pores.

[00:10:30]So, but then in this again a very important concept is the pore size. So, the naturally occurring zeolites might not have a uniform pore size. Naturally occurring occurring zeolites or activated charcoals, they do not differentiate between vitamins, nutrients, or mycotoxins, pesticides.

[00:10:47]They'll they're like a universal binder.

[00:10:50]If you look at synthetic tectosilicates, these are the same.

[00:10:54]These are designed silicates. These are designed tectosilicates.

[00:10:58]And they are they are needed to be designed in a certain way where the pore size is five angstrom and it is uniform across the molecule.

[00:11:09]That's why it can avoid it can selectively bind specific molecules like mycotoxins and pesticides. It will not have that much interaction with bigger nutrients like vitamins, minerals, uh and other nutrients.

[00:11:24]So, that's why in synthetic tectosilicates, the other benefit, which is often uh I know overseeing is that vitamin interaction is almost negligible.

[00:11:37]So, when the bird is already, you know, in a challenged position, we don't want to compromise the nutrition.

[00:11:44]So, we want to make sure that we are giving feeding something that's all that's not disturbing the normal nutrient absorption as well.

[00:11:52]So, that's where the technology is very different and that's why Toxin Binder 360 has been a very successful product for Kemin across all these years.

[00:12:03]>> That's a very interesting approach in the modern toxin mitigation solution strategies.

[00:12:13]There are several assumptions and misconceptions about toxin risks and contamination challenges and the toxin binder solutions.

[00:12:20]>> [music] >> So, in your opinion, what do you believe are the biggest myths this industry still has about toxin binder solutions or the toxin contamination risks?

[00:12:29]>> Okay. So, I think one of the major discussion that happens around dosage of toxin binders.

[00:12:38]We have always maintained that there is a minimum sites that are required in order to bind a particular level of contamination.

[00:12:50]So, if because it's a surface phenomena, uh binding is a surface phenomena and it requires a certain amount of you know, volume in order to cover the, you know, 1 ton of feed, 1,000 kg of a feed. The spread has to be at least that much so that we are covering all the hot spots where mycotoxins could be.

[00:13:13]That's why we maintain that the minimum dosage is 1 kg definitely. In challenge periods, it might or might not be increased depending on the level of contamination.

[00:13:24]Uh So, I think both overdosing overdosing might also lead to, you know, more nutrient interaction, more nutrient binding. So, that is also a loss.

[00:13:35]Underdosing might not fulfill the requirements that the kind of prevention the insurance that we seek out of toxin binder cannot cover it.

[00:13:45]Okay? So, underdosing and overdosing both are kind of problematic.

[00:13:50]But, yes, we can play around a dosage above 1 kg with >> [music] >> clay-based toxin binders, correct?

[00:13:58]So, I think the second misconception, although I don't see it much, but sometimes it comes in discussion is cation exchange capacity of toxin binders.

[00:14:11]Cation exchange capacity or CEC value, sometimes our customers also asks what is the our CEC value, you know.

[00:14:21]Although it is one measure of binding efficacy of a toxin binder, but it's not the only measure.

[00:14:30]So, it could be a good measure for something like aflatoxin kind of molecule.

[00:14:37]But, when it comes to other mycotoxins like cyclopiazonic acid, when it comes to ochratoxin, zearalenone, definitely we need to look at it from a broader lens like I mentioned like in vivo excretion studies, in vitro bifasic net binding studies that will be of more help.

[00:14:57]>> Okay.

[00:14:59]>> Then, the final one which comes to my mind is still the chemical toxicity or the pesticide toxicity that comes from that might come from storage chemicals that are used or field chemicals that are used is not a major problem. So, that's a kind of myth that's still survives. But, in Kemin we have done a survey in the very beginning around 2017 or 20 well in 2018.

[00:15:31]Where we found that almost 60% of samples had some or the other level of pesticide contamination.

[00:15:41]So, the risk cannot be overlooked and proper measures has to be taken in order to understand how this risk can challenge our production, can affect our FCR, affect our birds' health.

[00:15:59]So, those all things has to be taken into consideration and we have to provide solution for mycotoxicants, you know, mycotoxic toxins and also for chemical toxins that are coming into food. Yes.

[00:16:14]>> So, definitely breaking this misconceptions is very important for informed decision-making of our customers.

[00:16:20]So, thank you so much for your valuable time and such a great discussion about the modern technologies [music] of toxin binders and the scientific validation approaches which Kemin follows.

[00:16:30]>> Yeah.

[00:16:31]>> [music] >> Thank you so much.

[00:16:32]>> Thank you so much.