Next Article in Journal
Degradation Characteristics of Nicosulfuron in Water and Soil by MnO2 Nano-Immobilized Laccase
Previous Article in Journal
Impacts of Environmental Concentrations of Nanoplastics on Zebrafish Neurobehavior and Reproductive Toxicity
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Effect of Different Thiamethoxam Concentrations on Riptortus pedestris Development and Fecundity
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Toxics
Volume 12
Issue 8
10.3390/toxics12080618
toxics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Characterization of Neonicotinoid Metabolites by Cytochrome P450-Mediated Metabolism in Poultry

by
Adisorn Dam-on
1,
Collins Nimako
2,3,
Sittinee Kulprasertsri
4,
Yoshinori Ikenaka
2,3,5,6,
Yared B. Yohannes
2,3,
Shouta M. M. Nakayama
2,7,
Mayumi Ishizuka
2,
Saranya Poapolathep
1,
Amnart Poapolathep
1 and
Kraisiri Khidkhan
1,*
1
Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand
2
Laboratory of Toxicology, Department of Environmental Veterinary Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Hokkaido University, Kita 18 Nishi 9, Kita-ku, Sapporo 060-0818, Japan
3
One Health Research Center, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 060-0818, Japan
4
Department of Farm Resources and Production Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Kasetsart University, Kamphaeng Saen Campus, Nakhon Pathom 73140, Thailand
5
Water Research Group, School of Environmental Sciences and Development, North-West University, P.O. Box X6001, Potchefstroom 2531, South Africa
6
Translational Research Unit, Veterinary Teaching Hospital, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 060-0818, Japan
7
School of Veterinary Medicine, The University of Zambia, Great East Road, P.O. Box 32379, Lusaka 10101, Zambia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Toxics 2024, 12(8), 618; https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics12080618
Submission received: 4 July 2024 / Revised: 14 August 2024 / Accepted: 20 August 2024 / Published: 21 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Bioavailability, Biotransformation and Biotoxicity Induced by Pesticide Exposure)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Neonicotinoids, a neuro-effective class of insecticides, are heavily applied in agricultural activities worldwide. Poultry can be exposed to neonicotinoids by several routes, but the knowledge of neonicotinoid’s metabolism in poultry and its associated interspecies differences is highly limited. Hence, this study aims to investigate the species differences in metabolite formations, as well as cytochrome P450 (CYP)-dependent metabolism of four major neonicotinoid compounds, acetamiprid, imidacloprid, clothianidin, and thiamethoxam, in poultry. In vitro biotransformation assays using hepatic microsomes of chicken, ducks, geese, quails, and rats were conducted. Metabolites of neonicotinoids were then screened by LC/Q-TOF and quantified by LC/MS/MS. The results revealed an existence of interspecies differences in the formations of N-[(6-chloro-3-pyridyl) methyl] -N-methyl acetamidine (IM-1-5) of acetamiprid and dm-clothianidin of clothianidin between chicken and other species. In addition, the greatest CYP activities in the metabolism of most neonicotinoid substrates, such as acetamiprid to dm-acetamiprid, imidacloprid to hydroxylated-imidacloprid and imidacloprid-olefin, clothianidin to dm-clothianidin, and thiamethoxam to clothianidin, were found in chicken. These results suggested that the CYPs in chicken may have a greater capacity for metabolism of neonicotinoids compared to other poultry. This study further revealed that the maximum intrinsic clearance of dn-imidacloprid and dn-clothianidin in ducks may be superintended by CYP-mediated nitro-reductions of imidacloprid and clothianidin. Further studies employing CYP recombinant enzymes may be required to elucidate the specific CYP isoforms that may be involved in neonicotinoid metabolism in avian species.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Neonicotinoids, a class of neuroactive insecticides, are extensively used in monitoring pests in several agricultural crops [1]. Since the chemical structures of neonicotinoids are similar to nicotine, these compounds affect the central nervous system by binding to nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, leading to excitation and death of insects [2,3]. Because of their high water solubility and persistence in soil (half-lives ranging from 3 to >1000 days), neonicotinoids can be transported to many environmental compartments outside of their original application zones and may harm non-target creatures [4,5]. Acetamiprid, imidacloprid, clothianidin, and thiamethoxam are the most often detected neonicotinoids in various types of environmental matrices such as fruits, vegetables, soil, and water [1,6,7]. Thus, the presence of these neonicotinoids in the environment may present significant risks to both human and animal health.
Avian species are globally distributed in a variety of environments and climates. They can be exposed to chemicals, such as heavy metals, dioxins, and pesticides, by several routes [8,9]. In recent years, many studies have raised concerns about the potential adverse impacts of neonicotinoids on bird species [10,11,12]. Hallmann et al. [13] revealed that insectivorous bird populations tended to decline after the introduction of imidacloprid to the Netherlands. Similarly, in the United States, the increased usage of neonicotinoids between the years 2008 and 2014 caused a notable decline in avian biodiversity [10]. In addition, a previous study suggested that wild songbirds feeding on the imidacloprid-coated seeds had increased risks of mortality or exhibited significant loses in breeding chance [12].
The family of membrane-bound hemoproteins known as cytochrome P450s (CYPs) carries out various oxidative reactions on a diverse range of substrates [14]. Phase I metabolism of neonicotinoids is mainly based on these enzymes in the liver [15]. A previous in vitro analysis using human CYP recombinant enzymes indicated that CYP3A4 and CYP2C19 are key isoforms for the metabolism of thiamethoxam to clothianidin and clothianidin substrate to desmethyl-clothianidin [16]. In addition, Zhao et al. [5] suggested that the mechanism of toxicity of neonicotinoid pesticides may be involved in the impairment of CYPs. The study on the CYP metabolism of neonicotinoids using microsomes of dogs, cats, humans, and rats revealed that the difference in their kinetics and metabolite formation mainly depends on species and neonicotinoid substrates. For example, rats have a high oxidation rate of imidacloprid to 4OH-imidacloprid, while cats and humans showed the lowest formation of dm-clothianidin in the clothianidin metabolism [17]. In avian species, CYPs are among the most essential enzymes in the metabolism of pesticides, and the activity of CYPs varies by sex, age, and strain [6,18,19]. The total amounts and CYP activity in the avian livers are either slightly lower than or equivalent to those of mammals [18]. An in vitro and in silico investigation on avian CYP1-3 genes in chicken, zebra finch, and turkey discovered several notable characteristics of avian CYP1-3 genes and suggested that CYP2C45 may play a prominent role in the metabolism of xenobiotics in chicken [20]. Again, previous studies have indicated that several metabolites of neonicotinoids may be more toxic to animals than the parent compounds [21,22,23]. For instance, the thiacloprid-amide (metabolite of thiacloprid) and desnitro-imidacloprid (metabolite of imidacloprid) had higher cytotoxicity potency on fish leukocytes than their parent substances [24]. Nauen et al. [25] and Benzidane et al. [26] suggest that clothianidin (metabolite of thiamethoxam) has a high affinity to nicotinic acetylcholine receptors that could be as toxic as the parent compound. These emphasize the need for a more comprehensive understanding of interspecies differences in neonicotinoid metabolism, especially detoxifying enzymes such as CYPs.
The aim of the current study was to elucidate the interspecies differences in metabolite formations and CYP activities following the metabolism of major neonicotinoid compounds such as imidacloprid, acetamiprid, clothianidin, and thiamethoxam among poultry species (chicken, ducks, geese, and quails) and rats. To the best of our knowledge, there is no existing information clarifying CYP-dependent metabolism of neonicotinoids, and its associated metabolite formations in poultry. Our findings provide a first piece of evidence of neonicotinoid accumulation, excretion, sensitivities and the plausible toxicities in avian species.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Chemicals

Acetamiprid, imidacloprid, clothianidin, and thiamethoxam (purity: ≥99.5%) were purchased from LGC Dr. Ehrenstorfer (Middlesex, UK). Magnesium chloride (MgCl2) and glucose 6-phosphate (G6P) were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA). Glucose 6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PDH) and β-Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (β-NADPH) were purchased from Oriental Yeast Co., Ltd. (Tokyo, Japan) and Calbiochem (Darmstadt, Germany), respectively. Acetonitrile, methanol, ammonium formate, and formic acid were obtained from Kanto Chemical Co., Inc. (Tokyo, Japan). The BCA protein assay kit was purchased from Thermo Fisher Scientific (Rockford, IL, USA). The standards of target neonicotinoid metabolites (Table S1) were obtained from Wako Pure Chemical Co. (Osaka, Japan) or synthesized at Toho University (Chiba, Japan). Internal standards of acetamiprid (acetamiprid-D3), imidacloprid (imdacloprid-D4), clothianidin (clothianidin-D3), and thiamethoxam (thiamethoxam-D4) were purchased from Hayashi Pure Chemical Ind., Ltd. (Osaka, Japan). Internal standards of 4-hydroxy-imidacloprod (4OH-imidacloprod-13C-15N2), 5-hydroxy-imidacloprod (5OH-imidacloprod-13C-15N2), imidacloprid-olefin (imidacloprid-olefin-13C-15N2), 6-chloronicotinoic acid (6-CNA-13C6), N-desmethyl-acetamiprid (dm-acetamiprid-D3), and desmethyl-clothianidin (dm-clothianidin-13C-15N2) were acquired from Cambridge Isotope Laboratories, Inc. (Tewksbury, MA, USA).

2.2. Samples and Microsome Preparation

All experimental protocols and animal-handling procedures were performed following the guidelines for animal experiments and approved by the Animal Ethics Research Committee of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand (Approval number: ACKU66-VET-026). Liver samples of chickens (Gallus domesticus, n = 5), ducks (Anas platyrhynchos, n = 5), geese (Anser domesticus, n = 3), quails (Coturnix coturnix, n = 5), and rats (Rattus norvegicus, n = 3) were obtained from the previous study [27]. The information on studied animals used to obtain liver microsomes is provided in Table S2. The liver microsomal fractions used in this study were prepared by the method of Omura and Sato [28] with slight modifications. Briefly, liver sample was homogenized with 0.1 M potassium phosphate buffer (KPB, pH 7.4) and centrifuged at 9000× g at 4 °C for 20 min. The supernatant was collected and centrifuged twice at 105,000× g at 4 °C for 60 min. Microsomal pellets were homogenized with 0.1 M KPB and measured for protein concentrations using the BCA protein assay kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Rockford, IL, USA) before being frozen using liquid nitrogen, for storage at −80 °C until analysis.

2.3. In Vitro CYP Metabolism of Neonicotinoids

The assay of neonicotinoid metabolism using liver microsome was modified from that of a previous study [17]. Since we had insufficient liver samples to produce the microsomes of geese and quails, the substrates of imidacloprid and clothianidin were not applied for those microsome reactions. However, microsomes of chicken, ducks, and rats were used for all substrate reactions. A mixture of 0.1 M KPB, MgCl2 (3 mM), G6P (5 mM), neonicotinoid substrate (acetamiprid or imidacloprid or clothianidin or thiamethoxam, 0.125–80 μM), and hepatic microsome (1 mg/mL) of each species was pre-incubated for 5 min in a thermo-shaker. Then, the reaction was initiated by adding a mixture of G6PDH (2 IU/mL) and β-NADPH (0.5 mM), and continuously incubating for 30 min. Then, 0.1% formic acid in acetonitrile was added to stop the reaction. After that, the reaction sample was placed on ice for 15 min before centrifugation at 12,000 g for 10 min. The supernatant (100 μL) was collected and then spiked with neonicotinoid internal standard mixtures (50 μL), then evaporated using a centrifugal evaporator (CVE-200D with UT-2000, EYELA, Tokyo, Japan). The dried sample was re-dissolved with 20% methanol (v/v) and transferred into vials for chemical analysis.

2.4. Metabolite Screening by LC/Q-TOF and Quantification by LC/MS/MS

A liquid chromatograph quadrupole time-of-flight (6546 LC/Q-TOF; Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) operated with a 1.8 μm Eclipse Plus C18 RRHD analytical column (2.1 × 150 mm; Agilent Technologies, CA, USA) at a flow rate of 0.25 mL/min was used in the screening test to search for chromatographic peaks with the exact molecular mass of the possible neonicotinoid metabolites (Table S3). The mobile phases were 10 mM ammonium formate in water (A) and 10 mM ammonium formate in MeOH (B). The gradient elution of mobile phase B was set as follows: 2% (0–1 min), 100% (1–30 min), continued 100% (30–39 min), and a 4 min post-run at 2%. An injection volume was 5 μL and the column temperature was maintained at 45 °C. The expected formulas of potential metabolites of the four neonicotinoids were derived from previous publications on neonicotinoid metabolites in environment samples [29,30] and in animals [22,31].
A liquid chromatography mass spectrometer (Ultivo Triple Quadrupole LC/MS; Agilent Technologies, CA, USA) equipped with a 2.6 μm Biphenyl 100 A LC column (150 × 2.1 mm; Kinetex, Phenomenex Inc., Torrance, CA, USA) was applied to quantify the target metabolites of acetamiprid, imidacloprid, clothianidin, and thiamethoxam (Table S1). For all analyses, mobile phase A consisted of 0.1% formic acid + 10 mM ammonium acetate in distilled water and mobile phase B consisted of 0.1% formic acid + 10 mM ammonium acetate in 100% MeOH. The injection volume of 5 μL, the flow rate of 0.40 mL/min with gradient elution, and a column temperature of 45 °C were used for all experiments. The ion signals were acquired with multiple-reaction monitoring (MRM) in positive ionization mode.
In the current study, the liver microsome was spiked with deuterium-labelled internal standards (ISs) of the target neonicotinoids before the extraction and purification processes. About 13 neonicotinoid compounds were quantified by the internal standard method. The calibration curves were created using 10-point calibration standards ranging from 0.05 to 20 ng/mL. Calibration curves were plotted using standard peak area/IS peak area ratios, and average coefficients of determination (r2) for the calibration curves were ≥0.995. The accuracy of the current analytical method was validated and determined using matrix-spiked neonicotinoid standards at two concentrations, 1 ng/mL and 10 ng/mL. The thirteen target compounds were detected with recovery rates ranging from 87 to 101% at 1 ng/mL, and 86 to 116% at 10 ng/mL. The precision of the analytical technique was confirmed by inter-day and intra-day analysis; and the relative standard deviations were found to be less than 15% for all the target compounds. In the current study, all the assays were performed in duplicates and the negative controls (the reaction mixture without substrate) were prepared for each sample.

2.5. Data Analysis

A Michaelis–Menten equation was performed to calculate kinetic parameters including maximum velocity (Vmax), Michaelis–Menten constants (Km), and Vmax/Km ratio in the GraphPad Prism version 8.4.3 software for Windows (San Diego, CA, USA). Statistical analyses were conducted using the JMP Pro 17 software (SAS Institute, Carry, NC, USA). One-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey–Kramer multiple comparison test was used to compare the Vmax/Km ratio among species. All results were presented as the mean ± standard deviation (SD). A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant in all analyses.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Identification of Metabolites and Differences in Kinetics of Neonicotinoids among Species

This study first scanned for the potential metabolites of predominantly used neonicotinoid insecticides, acetamiprid, imidacloprid, clothianidin, and thiamethoxam in various species using microsome mixtures (containing 800 µM of each of the target neonicotinoid substrates) and LC/Q-TOF techniques. Several neonicotinoid metabolites were formed in our current in vitro biotransformation assays (Table 1). Further investigations using LC/MS/MS techniques revealed significant differences in kinetic parameters such as the maximum rates of reaction (Vmax), enzyme-substrate affinities (Km), and intrinsic clearance (Vmax/Km), among the five avian species considered in the current study, chicken, ducks, geese, quails, and rats (Table 2 and Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4).

3.1.1. Acetamiprid

Metabolites of acetamiprid including N-desmethyl-acetamiprid (dm-acetamiprid or IM-2-1) and N-methyl(6-chloro-3-pyridyl) methylamine (IM-1-4) were found in all the studied species (Table 1). Among the two metabolites, IM-2-1 stood out as the major metabolite in chicken, ducks, geese, quails, and rats. These findings were similar to findings from previous exposure experiments in poultry and rats; however, the amount of IM-1-4 reported in the reference rat experiment was relatively small [32,33]. Whereas the N-[(6-chloro-3-pyridyl) methyl]-N-methyl acetamidine (IM-1-5) metabolite of acetamiprid was not detected in the reaction mixtures involving chicken microsome, this metabolite was clearly detected in microsomes of the other target species. Although IM-1-5 was generally transformed and detected in soil [34], our study revealed that this metabolite was also formed in ducks, geese, quails, and rats. Except for dm-acetamiprid, most known acetamiprid metabolites were hardly detected by LC/MS/MS in our current study. The Michaelis–Menten plots and kinetic parameters of dm-acetamiprid for all the target species are given in Figure 1 and Table 2. Significant differences in CYP activities in metabolism of acetamiprid to dm-acetamiprid were found among poultry species; the greatest clearance was found in chicken (46.5 ± 3.5 nL/min/mg protein), followed by geese (27.7 ± 0.5 nL/min/mg protein), quails (7.2 ± 0.2 nL/min/mg protein), ducks (5.7 ± 0.4 nL/min/mg protein), and rats (1.5 ± 0.1 nL/min/mg protein). Acetamiprid was rapidly metabolized by phase I enzymes, including CYP and aldehyde oxidase in the liver of mammals [35] and the acetamiprid demethylation to dm-acetamiprid was previously reported as the main acetamiprid metabolic pathway in rats [32,36]. Our study suggests that the specific CYP isoforms involved in the metabolism of acetamiprid found in chicken may differ from other target species.

3.1.2. Imidacloprid

By comparing the CYP-mediated metabolism of imidacloprid among chicken, ducks, and rats, similar trends in imidacloprid metabolite formations were observed among the three species (Table 1). Liver microsomes of chicken, ducks, and rats could transform the imidacloprid substrate to hydroxylated imidacloprid (4OH- and/or 5OH-imidacloprid), desnitro-imidacloprid (dn-imidacloprid), and imidacloprid-olefin. For the hydroxylated imidacloprid, we could not separate 4OH-imidacloprid from 5OH-imidacloprid by LC/Q-TOF because both imidacloprid metabolites had similar molecular weights. Hence, we employed the LC/MS/MS technique to identify those metabolites, and our results indicated that 4OH-imidacloprid and 5OH-imidacloprid are the main metabolites for CYP-dependent metabolism of imidacloprid in chicken, ducks, and rats. In addition, imidacloprid-olefin and dn-imidacloprid were found as minor metabolites in chicken and ducks, but these metabolites were hardly detected in rats. Table 2 and Figure 2 show the differences in Michaelis–Menten plots and kinetic parameters of the four metabolites of imidacloprid among the three target species. Chicken had the maximum Vmax/Km of 4OH-imidacloprid (17.1 ± 0.6 nL/min/mg protein), 5OH-imidacloprid (15.3 ± 0.0 nL/min/mg protein), and imidacloprid-olefin (7.5 ± 0.9 nL/min/mg protein). Similar clearance rates of 4OH-imidacloprid (1.6 ± 0.1 and 1.1 ± 0.3 nL/min/mg protein) and 5OH-imidacloprid (0.8 ± 0.1 nL/min/mg protein) were observed in ducks and rats. In the current study, the highest intrinsic clearance of dn-imidacloprid (5.5 ± 0.6 nL/min/mg protein) was found in ducks. Humans’ CYP3A4 and CYP2D6 are selective enzymes for formations of 5OH-imidacloprid and dn-imidacloprid [37,38]. The phylogenetic and synteny analyses suggested no clear ortholog of CYP3A genes between birds and humans [20]. In addition, Cai et al. [39] suggested that the gene structure of human CYP2D6 is similar to avian CYP2D49. In birds, although CYP activity is commonly comparable to or lower than that of mammals [18], the results of our study indicated that CYP3A and/or CYP2D49 in chicken and ducks may more efficiently metabolize imidacloprid to the 5OH-imidacloprid and dn-imidacloprid metabolites, compared to rats.
In mammals, the aldehyde oxidases are essential metabolism enzymes for nitro-reduction of imidacloprid to dn-imidacloprid [40,41]. Based on our results, the highest intrinsic clearance of dn-imidacloprid in ducks might have been instigated by the hepatic CYP enzymes that are capable of mediating the nitro-reduction pathway of imidacloprid. Since the dn-imidacloprid showed a higher affinity for nicotinic acetylcholine receptors than imidacloprid, this metabolite is predicted to be more toxic to mammals than the parent compound [41]. Hence, the greater formation of dn-imidacloprid in ducks suggests that ducks may be more susceptible to the toxicological impacts of imidacloprid, compared to the other studied species.

3.1.3. Clothianidin

We found two metabolites of clothianidin including dm-clothianidin and clothianidin-urea after the in vitro metabolic assays of clothianidin with microsomes of chicken, ducks, and rats (Table 1). In addition to dm-clothianidin and clothianidin-urea, dn-clothianidin and desmethyl-desnitro-clothianidin (dm-dn-clothianidin) were detected by LC/MS/MS. Among these detected metabolites, dm-clothianidin was the most predominantly formed in avian species including chicken and ducks, while dn-clothianidin was the major metabolite in rats. The kinetic parameters and Michaelis–Menten plots for the CYP-dependent metabolism of clothianidin in chicken, ducks, and rats are shown in Table 2 and Figure 3. The intrinsic clearance of dm-clothianidin and dn-clothianidin was greatest in chicken (86.8 ± 12.6 nL/min/mg protein) and ducks (10.9 ± 0.2 nL/min/mg protein). Chicken, ducks, and rats showed no significant differences in the enzyme kinetics of clothianidin metabolism to clothianidin-urea. In humans, CYP2A6, CYP2C19, and CYP3A4 are suggested to be the key enzymes responsible for transforming clothianidin to dm-clothianidin [16]. In avian species, Watanabe et al. [20] suggested that xenobiotic-metabolizing CYPs, especially CYP2C and CYP3A, may be greatly involved in the evolution of avian-specific gene duplications. They further found out that CYP2C45 was the most greatly expressed CYP isoform in the liver of chicken and may play a central role in xenobiotic metabolism [20]. Our current findings strongly suggest that analogous CYP isoforms in avian species may have higher clothianidin demethylation ability than in rats.

3.1.4. Thiamethoxam

The in vitro thiamethoxam metabolism assay using microsomes of chicken, ducks, and rats revealed the formation of various metabolites; these include clothianidin, clothianidin-urea, dm-clothianidin, N-desmethyl-thiamethoxam, and thiamethoxam-urea (Table 1). The major metabolite of thiamethoxam observed in the current target species was clothianidin. These findings are highly consistent with a previous in vivo exposure study of thiamethoxam [19], in which clothianidin and dm-thiamethoxam were identified as key metabolites of thiamethoxam in Japanese quails (Coturnix japonica). While the dm-clothianidin was earlier reported as a minor metabolite of thiamethoxam in quail species [19], the results of LC/Q-TOF and LC/MS/MS in our study indicated that this metabolite was formed only in chickens, but not in ducks, geese, and quails. Perhaps these contrasting results might have been instigated by differences in experimental species and thiamethoxam exposure doses. The Michaelis–Menten plots, Vmax, Km, and Vmax/Km values of clothianidin and dm-clothianidin are presented in Figure 4 and Table 2. The fastest clearance of clothianidin was observed in chicken (16.9 ± 0.2 nL/min/mg protein) followed by geese (5.0 ± 0.6 nL/min/mg protein). Meanwhile, similar clearance rates of clothianidin metabolite were found in ducks (1.6 ± 0.1 nL/min/mg protein), quails (2.4 ± 0.5 nL/min/mg protein), and rats (1.6 ± 0.2 nL/min/mg protein). Human CYP2B6, CYP2C19, and CYP3A4 are known to be involved in the conversion of thiamethoxam to clothianidin [16]. Pan et al. [19] reported that the metabolism of thiamethoxam in quails is predominantly mediated by CYP and glutathione metabolism pathways. In addition, molecular dynamic simulation showed the strongest binding interaction between quail CYP2H1 and thiamethoxam [19]. CYP2H genes were assumed to be avian-specific and corresponded to CYP2C genes in mammals [20]. Thus, our study revealed that chicken CYP3A and CYP2H may have a higher potential to metabolize thiamethoxam substrate to clothianidin compared to rats.

3.2. Higher Capacity for CYP-Dependent Metabolism of Neonicotinoids in Chickens

The interspecies differences in metabolite formations and CYP-mediated metabolism of neonicotinoids were observed in domestic poultry. Katagi and Fujisawa [18] reviewed that the total amount and activity of avian CYPs depend on species; they may also vary by sex, age, and strain. Among the four target poultry species, chickens showed a specific metabolism of acetamiprid and thiamethoxam by microsomes containing CYPs. From the LC/Q-TOF analysis, IM-1-5 (acetamiprid metabolite) was detected in microsomes of all target species of this study except in that of chickens; in sharp contrast, however, the dm-clothianidin metabolite of clothianidin was found only in the microsome reactions of chicken. In addition, kinetic parameters of neonicotinoid metabolism indicated that the maximum rates of oxidations of acetamiprid to dm-acetamiprid; imidacloprid to 4OH-imidacloprid, 5OH-imidacloprid, and olefin; clothianidin to dm-clothianidin, and thiamethoxam to clothianidin were found in chickens. Our previous finding also suggested that the intrinsic hepatic clearance of fipronil and the capacity of CYPs to metabolize fipronil to sulfone was most efficient in chickens compared to other birds [27]. These findings indicated that microsomes of chickens may have greater capacity for CYP-dependent metabolism of neonicotinoids compared to ducks, geese, and quails. However, future studies are required to elucidate the specific CYP isoforms of neonicotinoid metabolism in poultry species using CYP recombinant enzymes. In addition to CYPs, further investigations on other phase I and II metabolism enzymes related to neonicotinoid metabolism such as aldehyde oxidase and glutathione S-transferase are required.

4. Conclusions

In conclusion, this study was the first elucidation on the specific compositions of metabolites and the interspecies differences in CYP-mediated metabolism of several neonicotinoids in poultry using liver microsomes. Microsomes of chicken may contain higher potential CYPs to metabolize neonicotinoid substrates to various major metabolites, causing the specific formations of metabolites found in chicken compared to ducks, geese, quails, and rats. CYPs in ducks may effectively associate with the nitro-reduction of imidacloprid and clothianidin by showing the highest Vmax/Km values of dn-imidacloprid and dn-clothianidin in this study. These findings supported the hypothesis that species and individual substrates could influence the variance of CYP-dependent neonicotinoid metabolism using in vitro microsomal assays.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/toxics12080618/s1, Table S1: Neonicotinoids and target metabolites for LC/MS/MS analysis; Table S2: Details of studied animals to extract liver microsomes.; Table S3: Screening neonicotinoids and target metabolites using LC/Q-TOF.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.D.-o. and K.K.; methodology, A.D.-o., C.N., S.K., Y.I., Y.B.Y., S.P., A.P. and K.K.; software, K.K.; validation, A.D.-o., C.N. and Y.B.Y.; formal analysis, A.D.-o. and K.K.; investigation, A.D.-o., S.K., C.N., Y.I. and K.K.; resources, S.K., Y.I., M.I. and A.P.; data curation, A.D.-o. and K.K.; writing—original draft preparation, A.D.-o. and K.K.; writing—review and editing, A.D.-o., C.N., Y.I., S.M.M.N., M.I., S.P., A.P. and K.K.; visualization, A.D.-o., C.N. and K.K.; supervision, K.K., Y.I., S.M.M.N., M.I., S.P. and A.P.; project administration, K.K.; funding acquisition, K.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Office of the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation (OPS MHESI), Thailand Science Research and Innovation (TSRI), Grant No. RGNS64-024.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The animal study protocol was approved by the Animal Ethics Research Committee of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand (ACKU66-VET-026, 7 April 2023).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original data presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Buszewski, B.; Bukowska, M.; Ligor, M.; Staneczko-Baranowska, I. A holistic study of neonicotinoids neuroactive insecticides-properties, applications, occurrence, and analysis. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2019, 26, 34723–34740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Costas-Ferreira, C.; Faro, L.R.F. Neurotoxic Effects of Neonicotinoids on Mammals: What Is There beyond the Activation of Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors?—A Systematic Review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 8413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Matsuda, K.; Buckingham, S.D.; Kleier, D.; Rauh, J.J.; Grauso, M.; Sattelle, D.B. Neonicotinoids: Insecticides acting on insect nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2001, 22, 573–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hladik, M.L.; Main, A.R.; Goulson, D. Environmental Risks and Challenges Associated with Neonicotinoid Insecticides. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 3329–3335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zhao, G.-P.; Yang, F.-W.; Li, J.-W.; Xing, H.-Z.; Ren, F.-Z.; Pang, G.-F.; Li, Y.-X. Toxicities of Neonicotinoid-Containing Pesticide Mixtures on Nontarget Organisms. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2020, 39, 1884–1893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wood, T.J.; Goulson, D. The environmental risks of neonicotinoid pesticides: A review of the evidence post 2013. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2017, 24, 17285–17325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Alsafran, M.; Rizwan, M.; Usman, K.; Saleem, M.H.; Jabri, H.A. Neonicotinoid insecticides in the environment: A critical review of their distribution, transport, fate, and toxic effects. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2022, 10, 108485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kan, C.A. Chemical Residues in Poultry; Woodhead Publishing Limited: Shaston, UK, 2004; pp. 258–282. [Google Scholar]
  9. Van Overmeire, I.; Pussemier, L.; Hanot, V.; De Temmerman, L.; Hoenig, M.; Goeyens, L. Chemical contamination of free-range eggs from Belgium. Food Addit. Contam. 2006, 23, 1109–1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Li, Y.; Miao, R.; Khanna, M. Neonicotinoids and decline in bird biodiversity in the United States. Nat. Sustain. 2020, 3, 1027–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gibbons, D.; Morrissey, C.; Mineau, P. A review of the direct and indirect effects of neonicotinoids and fipronil on vertebrate wildlife. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2015, 22, 103–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Eng, M.L.; Stutchbury, B.J.M.; Morrissey, C.A. Imidacloprid and chlorpyrifos insecticides impair migratory ability in a seed-eating songbird. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 15176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hallmann, C.A.; Foppen, R.P.B.; van Turnhout, C.A.M.; de Kroon, H.; Jongejans, E. Declines in insectivorous birds are associated with high neonicotinoid concentrations. Nature 2014, 511, 341–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cook, D.J.; Finnigan, J.D.; Cook, K.; Black, G.W.; Charnock, S.J. Chapter Five—Cytochromes P450: History, Classes, Catalytic Mechanism, and Industrial Application. In Advances in Protein Chemistry and Structural Biology; Christov, C.Z., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016; Volume 105, pp. 105–126. [Google Scholar]
  15. Thompson, D.A.; Lehmler, H.-J.; Kolpin, D.W.; Hladik, M.L.; Vargo, J.D.; Schilling, K.E.; LeFevre, G.H.; Peeples, T.L.; Poch, M.C.; LaDuca, L.E.; et al. A critical review on the potential impacts of neonicotinoid insecticide use: Current knowledge of environmental fate, toxicity, and implications for human health. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 2020, 22, 1315–1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Shi, X.; Dick, R.A.; Ford, K.A.; Casida, J.E. Enzymes and Inhibitors in Neonicotinoid Insecticide Metabolism. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2009, 57, 4861–4866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Khidkhan, K.; Ikenaka, Y.; Ichise, T.; Nakayama, S.M.M.; Mizukawa, H.; Nomiyama, K.; Iwata, H.; Arizono, K.; Takahashi, K.; Kato, K.; et al. Interspecies differences in cytochrome P450-mediated metabolism of neonicotinoids among cats, dogs, rats, and humans. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part C Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2021, 239, 108898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Katagi, T.; Fujisawa, T. Acute toxicity and metabolism of pesticides in birds. J. Pestic. Sci. 2021, 46, 305–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Pan, Y.; Chang, J.; Xu, P.; Xie, Y.; Yang, L.; Hao, W.; Li, J.; Wan, B. Twenty-four hours of Thiamethoxam: In vivo and molecular dynamics simulation study on the toxicokinetic and underlying mechanisms in quails (Coturnix japonica). J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 427, 128159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Watanabe, K.P.; Kawai, Y.K.; Ikenaka, Y.; Kawata, M.; Ikushiro, S.; Sakaki, T.; Ishizuka, M. Avian cytochrome P450 (CYP) 1–3 family genes: Isoforms, evolutionary relationships, and mRNA expression in chicken liver. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e75689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Berens, M.J.; Capel, P.D.; Arnold, W.A. Neonicotinoid Insecticides in Surface Water, Groundwater, and Wastewater Across Land-Use Gradients and Potential Effects. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2021, 40, 1017–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Simon-Delso, N.; Amaral-Rogers, V.; Belzunces, L.P.; Bonmatin, J.M.; Chagnon, M.; Downs, C.; Furlan, L.; Gibbons, D.W.; Giorio, C.; Girolami, V.; et al. Systemic insecticides (neonicotinoids and fipronil): Trends, uses, mode of action and metabolites. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 5–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Farooqui, T. A potential link among biogenic amines-based pesticides, learning and memory, and colony collapse disorder: A unique hypothesis. Neurochem. Int. 2013, 62, 122–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Rymuszka, A.; Sieroslawska, A. Comparative evaluation of neonicotinoids and their metabolites-induced oxidative stress in carp primary leukocytes and CLC cells. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 8291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Nauen, R.; Ebbinghaus-Kintscher, U.; Salgado, V.L.; Kaussmann, M. Thiamethoxam is a neonicotinoid precursor converted to clothianidin in insects and plants. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2003, 76, 55–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Benzidane, Y.; Touinsi, S.; Motte, E.; Jadas-Hécart, A.; Communal, P.-Y.; Leduc, L.; Thany, S.H. Effect of thiamethoxam on cockroach locomotor activity is associated with its metabolite clothianidin. Pest Manag. Sci. 2010, 66, 1351–1359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Khidkhan, K.; Poapolathep, S.; Kulprasertsri, S.; Sukkheewan, R.; Khunlert, P.; Giorgi, M.; Poapolathep, A. Comparative in vitro biotransformation of fipronil in domestic poultry using liver microsome. J. Vet. Sci. 2022, 23, e82. [Google Scholar]
  28. Omura, T.; Sato, R. The Carbon Monoxide-binding Pigment of Liver Microsomes: I. Evidence for its hemoprotein nature. J. Biol. Chem. 1964, 239, 2370–2378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Authority, E.F.S.; Abdourahime, H.; Anastassiadou, M.; Brancato, A.; Brocca, D.; Carrasco Cabrera, L.; De Lentdecker, C.; Ferreira, L.; Greco, L.; Jarrah, S.; et al. Review of the existing maximum residue levels for imidacloprid according to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. EFSA J. 2019, 17, e05570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. EFSA; Bellisai, G.; Bernasconi, G.; Brancato, A.; Cabrera, L.C.; Castellan, I.; Ferreira, L.; Giner, G.; Greco, L.; Jarrah, S.; et al. Modification of the existing maximum residue levels for acetamiprid in honey and various oilseed crops. EFSA J. 2022, 20, e07535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ford, K.A.; Casida, J.E. Unique and Common Metabolites of Thiamethoxam, Clothianidin, and Dinotefuran in Mice. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2006, 19, 1549–1556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; World Health Organization. Pesticide Residues in Food 2011: Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues: Report of the Joint Meeting of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the WHO Core Assessment Group on Pesticide Residues, Geneva, Switzerland, 20–29 September 2011; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  33. Authority, E.F.S. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance acetamiprid. EFSA J. 2016, 14, e04610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Pest Management Regulatory Agency of Health Canada. Acetamiprid; Proposed Registration Decision PRD2010-02; Pest Management Regulatory Agency: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  35. Zuščíková, L.; Bažány, D.; Greifová, H.; Knížatová, N.; Kováčik, A.; Lukáč, N.; Jambor, T. Screening of Toxic Effects of Neonicotinoid Insecticides with a Focus on Acetamiprid: A Review. Toxics 2023, 11, 598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kolanczyk, R.C.; Tapper, M.A.; Sheedy, B.R.; Serrano, J.A. In vitro metabolism of imidacloprid and acetamiprid in rainbow trout and rat. Xenobiotica 2020, 50, 805–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Casida, J.E. Neonicotinoid Metabolism: Compounds, Substituents, Pathways, Enzymes, Organisms, and Relevance. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 2923–2931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Schulz-Jander, D.A.; Casida, J.E. Imidacloprid insecticide metabolism: Human cytochrome P450 isozymes differ in selectivity for imidazolidine oxidation versus nitroimine reduction. Toxicol. Lett. 2002, 132, 65–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cai, H.; Jiang, J.; Yang, Q.; Chen, Q.; Deng, Y. Functional Characterization of a First Avian Cytochrome P450 of the CYP2D Subfamily (CYP2D49). PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e38395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Vardavas, A.I.; Ozcagli, E.; Fragkiadaki, P.; Stivaktakis, P.D.; Tzatzarakis, M.N.; Alegakis, A.K.; Vasilaki, F.; Kaloudis, K.; Tsiaoussis, J.; Kouretas, D.; et al. The metabolism of imidacloprid by aldehyde oxidase contributes to its clastogenic effect in New Zealand rabbits. Mutat. Res./Genet. Toxicol. Environ. Mutagen. 2018, 829–830, 26–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mourikes, V.E.; Santacruz Márquez, R.; Deviney, A.; Neff, A.M.; Laws, M.J.; Flaws, J.A. Imidacloprid and Its Bioactive Metabolite, Desnitro-Imidacloprid, Differentially Affect Ovarian Antral Follicle Growth, Morphology, and Hormone Synthesis In Vitro. Toxics 2023, 11, 349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Toxics 12 00618 g001
Figure 1. Michaelis–Menten plots for CYP activity (mean ± SD) of acetamiprid in chicken (red circle), duck (green square), goose (blue triangle), quail (pink triangle), and rat (black star) liver microsomes.
Figure 1. Michaelis–Menten plots for CYP activity (mean ± SD) of acetamiprid in chicken (red circle), duck (green square), goose (blue triangle), quail (pink triangle), and rat (black star) liver microsomes.
Toxics 12 00618 g001
Toxics 12 00618 g002
Figure 2. Michaelis–Menten plots for CYP activity (mean ± SD) of imidacloprid in chicken (red circle), duck (green square), and rat (black star).
Figure 2. Michaelis–Menten plots for CYP activity (mean ± SD) of imidacloprid in chicken (red circle), duck (green square), and rat (black star).
Toxics 12 00618 g002
Toxics 12 00618 g003
Figure 3. Michaelis–Menten plots for CYP activity (mean ± SD) of clothianidin in chicken (red circle), duck (green square), and rat (black star).
Figure 3. Michaelis–Menten plots for CYP activity (mean ± SD) of clothianidin in chicken (red circle), duck (green square), and rat (black star).
Toxics 12 00618 g003
Toxics 12 00618 g004
Figure 4. Michaelis–Menten plots for CYP activity (mean ± SD) of thiamethoxam in chicken (red circle), duck (green square), goose (blue triangle), quail (pink triangle), and rat (black star).
Figure 4. Michaelis–Menten plots for CYP activity (mean ± SD) of thiamethoxam in chicken (red circle), duck (green square), goose (blue triangle), quail (pink triangle), and rat (black star).
Toxics 12 00618 g004
Table 1. Neonicotinoid metabolites identified by LC/Q-TOF in reaction mixtures using liver microsomes from various species.
Table 1. Neonicotinoid metabolites identified by LC/Q-TOF in reaction mixtures using liver microsomes from various species.
SubstrateMetaboliteFormulaRT (min)MassMass (Target)Mass Difference
(ppm)		ScoreSpecies
AcetamipridN-desmethyl-acetamipridC9H9ClN412.9208.0514–208.0517208.0516−0.81–0.5598.4–99.7Chicken, Duck, Goose, Quail, Rat
N-methyl(6-chloro-3-pyridyl) methylamineC7H9ClN25.5156.0446–156.0452156.0454−5.16–(−1.14)77.2–99.5Chicken, Duck, Goose, Quail, Rat
N-[(6-chloro-3-pyridyl) methyl]-N-methyl acetamidineC9H12ClN34.5197.0709–197.0738197.0720−5.32–9.2851.1–66.8Duck, Goose, Quail, Rat
Imidacloprid *4OH- and/or 5OH-imidaclopridC9H10ClN5O310.7271.0468–271.0471271.0472−1.59–(−0.44)92.9–96.5Chicken, Duck, Rat
dn-imidaclopridC9H11ClN47.8210.067–210.0671210.0672−1.32–(−0.45)59.1–97.4Chicken, Duck, Rat
imidacloprid-olefinC9H8ClN5O210.5253.0363–253.0364253.0367−1.02–(−0.67)88.1–96.3Chicken, Duck, Rat
Clothianidin *dm-clothianidinC5H6ClN5O2S10.6234.9928–234.9929234.9931−1.25–(−0.57)95.3–97.5Chicken, Duck, Rat
clothianidin-ureaC6H8ClN3OS9.9205.0073–205.0074205.0077−1.88–(−1.05)94.9–99.5Chicken, Duck, Rat
ThiamethoxamclothianidinC6H8ClN5O2S11.8249.0084–249.0087249.0087−1.15–0.0298.9–99.5Chicken, Duck, Goose, Quail, Rat
clothianidin-ureaC6H8ClN3OS9.9205.0065–205.0084205.0077−5.49–3.867.5–90.8Chicken, Duck, Goose, Quail, Rat
dm-clothianidinC5H6ClN5O2S10.6234.9924–234.9928234.9931−2.96–(−1.03)59.1–73.5Chicken
N-desmethyl-thiamethoxamC7H8ClN5O3S12.3277.0029–277.0036277.0036−3.07–(−0.49)85.5–99.1Chicken, Duck, Goose, Quail, Rat
thiamethoxam-ureaC8H10ClN3O2S13.1247.0177–247.018247.0182−2.27–(−0.73)93.8–98.6Chicken, Duck, Goose, Quail, Rat
* The substrate was not analyzed using microsomes of goose and quail.
Table 2. Comparison of Michaelis–Menten kinetic parameters (Vmax (pmol/min/mg protein), Km (μM), Vmax/Km, (nL/min/mg protein), mean ± SD) for CYP metabolism of neonicotinoids among various species.
Table 2. Comparison of Michaelis–Menten kinetic parameters (Vmax (pmol/min/mg protein), Km (μM), Vmax/Km, (nL/min/mg protein), mean ± SD) for CYP metabolism of neonicotinoids among various species.
SubstrateMetaboliteParameterSpecies
ChickenDuckGooseQuailRat
Acetamipriddm-acetamipridVmax1.2 ± 0.00.4 ± 0.01.3 ± 0.20.3 ± 0.10.1 ± 0.0
Km25.6 ± 1.467.5 ± 9.948.2 ± 8.035.3 ± 10.355.8 ± 8.7
Vmax/Km46.5 ± 3.5 a5.7 ± 0.4 c27.7 ± 0.5 b7.2 ± 0.2 c1.5 ± 0.1 c
Imidacloprid4OH-imidaclopridVmax0.5 ± 0.00.1 ± 0.0--0.1 ± 0.0
Km31.2 ± 3.077.9 ± 19.1 138.5 ± 120.8
Vmax/Km17.1 ± 0.6 a1.6 ± 0.1 b 1.1 ± 0.3 b
5OH-imidaclopridVmax0.5 ± 0.00.1 ± 0.0--0.1 ± 0.0
Km34.1 ± 0.687.4 ± 27.7 112.0 ± 56.1
Vmax/Km15.3 ± 0.0 a0.8 ± 0.1 b 0.8 ± 0.1 b
dn-imidaclopridVmax1.0 ± 0.7 0.2 ± 0.0--0.1 ± 0.0
Km699.5 ± 500.037.6 ± 8.2 26.2 ± 0.7
Vmax/Km1.6 ± 0.2 b5.5 ± 0.6 a 2.8 ± 0.1 b
imidacloprid-olefinVmax0.2 ± 0.00.03 ± 0.0--NF
Km29.4 ± 7.942.2 ± 0.0
Vmax/Km7.5 ± 0.9 a0.8 ± 0.1 b
Clothianidindm-clothianidinVmax4.4 ± 1.22.9 ± 1.3--NF
Km52.0 ± 21.8358.8 ± 182.2
Vmax/Km86.8 ± 12.6 a8.1 ± 0.4 b
dn-clothianidinVmax0.1 ± 0.00.3 ± 0.1--0.2 ± 0.0
Km27.5 ± 18.429.1 ± 8.2 39.9 ± 9.7
Vmax/Km3.0 ± 1.3 b10.9 ± 0.2 a 5.5 ± 1.0 b
clothianidin-ureaVmax0.008 ± 0.0010.005 ± 0.001--0.012 ± 0.002
Km119.9 ± 24.175.2 ± 26.6 209.6 ± 56.6
Vmax/Km0.07 ± 0.010.07 ± 0.02 0.06 ± 0.00
ThiamethoxamclothianidinVmax1.2 ± 0.00.1 ± 0.00.2 ± 0.10.4 ± 0.10.1 ± 0.0
Km73.4 ± 0.192.7 ± 20.948.3 ± 19.6181.5 ± 82.763.0 ± 20.0
Vmax/Km16.9 ± 0.2 a1.6 ± 0.1 c5.0 ± 0.6 b2.4 ± 0.5 c1.6 ± 0.2 c
dm-clothianidinVmax0.01 ± 0.00NDNDNDND
Km13.0 ± 0.8
Vmax/Km0.4 ± 0.0
Different characters (a, b, and c) indicate statistically significant differences of Vmax/Km (Tukey–Kramer test, p < 0.05); NF, not fit to Michaelis–Menten plot; ND, not detected; -, The substrate was not analyzed using microsomes of goose and quail.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dam-on, A.; Nimako, C.; Kulprasertsri, S.; Ikenaka, Y.; Yohannes, Y.B.; Nakayama, S.M.M.; Ishizuka, M.; Poapolathep, S.; Poapolathep, A.; Khidkhan, K. Characterization of Neonicotinoid Metabolites by Cytochrome P450-Mediated Metabolism in Poultry. Toxics 2024, 12, 618. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics12080618

AMA Style

Dam-on A, Nimako C, Kulprasertsri S, Ikenaka Y, Yohannes YB, Nakayama SMM, Ishizuka M, Poapolathep S, Poapolathep A, Khidkhan K. Characterization of Neonicotinoid Metabolites by Cytochrome P450-Mediated Metabolism in Poultry. Toxics. 2024; 12(8):618. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics12080618

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dam-on, Adisorn, Collins Nimako, Sittinee Kulprasertsri, Yoshinori Ikenaka, Yared B. Yohannes, Shouta M. M. Nakayama, Mayumi Ishizuka, Saranya Poapolathep, Amnart Poapolathep, and Kraisiri Khidkhan. 2024. "Characterization of Neonicotinoid Metabolites by Cytochrome P450-Mediated Metabolism in Poultry" Toxics 12, no. 8: 618. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics12080618

APA Style

Dam-on, A., Nimako, C., Kulprasertsri, S., Ikenaka, Y., Yohannes, Y. B., Nakayama, S. M. M., Ishizuka, M., Poapolathep, S., Poapolathep, A., & Khidkhan, K. (2024). Characterization of Neonicotinoid Metabolites by Cytochrome P450-Mediated Metabolism in Poultry. Toxics, 12(8), 618. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics12080618

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop