Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42678401›Full record

ReviewArchives of toxicology2026

Current status of human biomonitoring of beauvericin and enniatins.

Gsela H Degen, Anamarija Romac

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Archives of toxicology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Gsela H DegenLeibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors (IfADo), Ardeystrasse 67, 44139, Dortmund, Germany. degen@ifado.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5034-6195
Anamarija Romac, Zagreb, Croatia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-5034-2893

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Beauvericin (BEA) and enniatins (ENNs) are Fusarium mycotoxins found in cereals and cereal-based foods as reported in several studies. But information on human internal exposure remains scattered. Human biomonitoring (HBM) enables the investigation of exposure to these nonregulated contaminants. This review summarizes data from studies published since 2014 on occurrence of BEA and ENNs in human urine, blood, breast milk, tissues and hair. Most studies from Europe, Africa, Asia and North America applied state-of-art methodologies for biomarker analysis. ENN B was the most frequently detected compound and was found in a high proportion of blood samples across different populations. Although BEA was reported less frequently, measurable levels were found in plasma, breast milk, tissues and, more recently, in urine. Both BEA and ENNs were found in human milk, indicating transfer from mother to infant, but generally at low concentrations. Data for human tissues suggest differences in distribution, with BEA occurring mainly in adipose tissue and ENN B reaching the highest concentrations in liver. Some studies reported phase-I metabolites of ENNs in urine, demonstrating that biotransformation contributes to their elimination in humans. Available HBM data indicate widespread dietary exposure to BEA and ENNs in several human populations. Concentrations measured in blood and tissues are much lower than those associated with their cytotoxic effects in vitro. Uncertainties remain regarding human toxicokinetics and the toxicological relevance of their metabolites. Further studies addressing these gaps will improve interpretation of biomonitoring data and support the human health risk assessment of these emerging mycotoxins.

Indexed as

BeauvericinBiomonitoringEnniatinsFood contaminants

Identifiers

PMID42678401

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.