Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Toxicology Reports logoLink to Toxicology Reports
. 2023 May 14;10:604–611. doi: 10.1016/j.toxrep.2023.05.005

Investigation of the relationship between ergocristinine and vascular receptors

Jensen E Cherewyk a,⁎, Barry R Blakley a, Ahmad N Al-Dissi b
PMCID: PMC10199403  PMID: 37213815

Abstract

Ergot alkaloids are secondary metabolites that exist in two configurations, the C-8-R-isomer (R-epimer), and the C-8-S-isomer (S-epimer). Toxic effects of ergot, such as vasoconstriction, have been primarily attributed to the R-epimer bioactivity, as compared to the S-epimer. Recent studies demonstrated potential bioactivity of S-epimers. Therefore, further cost-effective investigations of the S-epimers are needed. The present study investigated the S-epimer - vascular receptor binding relationship. An in silico molecular docking approach, utilizing AutoDock Vina and DockThor, was used to determine if the S-epimer (ergocristinine) binds to vascular receptors and to compare the binding affinity and interactions to the corresponding R-epimer (ergocristine) and a structural analogue (lysergic acid amide). The binding energy (kcal/mol) of ergocristinine was − 9.7 or − 11.0 to the serotonin (5-HT) 2 A receptor and − 8.7 or − 11.4 to the alpha 2 A adrenergic receptor, depending on the software used. A hydrogen bond was formed between ergocristinine and amino acid residues of the 5-HT 2 A and alpha 2 A adrenergic receptor binding sites, with bond lengths of 3.10 Å and 3.28 Å, respectively. Binding affinities and molecular interactions among the ligands to each receptor differed. Different affinities and interactions may relate to differences in the chemical structures. The binding affinities and strong molecular interactions of the S-epimer to vascular receptors may contribute to the observed physiological manifestations that occur after ergot alkaloid exposure. The results of the present study suggest further investigation on the receptor binding of the S-epimers of ergot alkaloids.

Keywords: Ergot alkaloid, Ergocristine, Mycotoxin, Affinity, Molecular interactions, Molecular docking

Graphical Abstract

ga1

Open in a new tab

Highlights

  • •

    An in silico approach was utilized to investigate the S-epimer, ergocristinine.

  • •

    Ergocristinine binds to vascular receptors with strong molecular interactions.

  • •

    This epimer – receptor interaction has not been demonstrated previously.

  • •

    The receptor interactions differed from ergocristine and lysergic acid amide.

1. Introduction

Fungi, from the Claviceps genus, infect cereal crops or grasses [1], [2] intended for food or feed for humans or animals [3]. A fungal mass, known as ergot sclerotia, develop on the spike of the plant [2], [4]. Ergot alkaloids are toxic secondary metabolites that are produced by the fungus and located in the sclerotia. Multiple ergot alkaloids are produced by the fungi, differing in their chemical structure. Ergopeptines are a class of ergot alkaloids structurally consisting of an ergoline and amino acid ring system [5]. There are five different common ergopeptines produced by Claviceps purpurea that differ by substituents [6], [7]. Ergopeptine alkaloids exist in two configurations associated with rotation at the carbon 8 adjacent to the 9–10 carbon double bond of the alkaloid structure [8]. Each configuration is referred to as the C-8-(R)-isomer (R-epimer) or the C-8-(S)-isomer (S-epimer). Names of specific epimers have a different suffix, depending on the configuration. The R-epimers have a -ine suffix and the S-epimers have a -inine suffix.

The R-epimers of ergot alkaloids were deemed the bioactive configuration, whereas the S-epimers were deemed less or non-bioactive [5], [9], [10]. Studies referencing the non-bioactivity of S-epimers are dated [11], [12]. The rationale for the non-bioactivity of the S-epimers is unclear. Recent studies have suggested potential bioactivity of the S-epimers [13], [14], [15]. Previous S-epimers of non ergopeptine alkaloids have demonstrated biological activity [16], [17]. An ergoline ergot alkaloid, 8S-lisuride, demonstrated high affinity, and higher affinity than the corresponding epimer, to a histamine receptor [16]. Therefore, further investigation into the S-epimers of ergopeptines is warranted.

There is a large percentage of S-epimers, out of the total ergot alkaloid concentration, in ergot contaminated matrices [18], [19]. In addition, certain R and S-epimers of ergot alkaloids are more relevant than others. Ergocristine and ergocristinine are found at high concentrations within ergot sclerotia globally [6], [19]. Ergocristinine had the highest and second highest mean concentration in feed and wheat samples compared to all other R and S-epimers analyzed The R- and S-epimers can interconvert to one another [20], however, ergocristinine has demonstrated stability in terms of epimerization under physiological conditions [13]. Furthermore, ergocristine had the highest antagonist activity in an ex vivo assay [21]and was the most cytotoxic compared to other ergot alkaloids [22].

The R-epimers of ergot alkaloids have been associated with adverse health effects as a consequence of the consumption of ergot contaminated food and feed. Ergot alkaloids share a similar chemical structure to endogenous molecules; therefore, bind to receptors in humans and animals leading to adverse effects [5]. Serotonin (5-HT) and alpha-adrenergic receptors mediate vasoconstriction through ergot alkaloid binding [23], [24], [25]. The R-epimers are known to bind to receptors to produce a biological response. Ergot alkaloids have a high affinity for their target receptors [24], [26], [27], [28], [29], however, previous studies have only focused on R-epimers. Limited studies have assessed S-epimer receptor interactions in vitro, however, some studies assessing non ergopeptine ergot alkaloids have demonstrated agonist, and antagonist properties with relatively high affinity to vascular receptors [17], [30]. Since in vitro binding studies can be costly and resource consuming, in silico methods can be utilized.

Molecular docking, an in silico approach, assesses ligand-receptor interactions and the strength of the interactions [31]. Molecular docking software uses binding energy, which is termed binding affinity, for the scoring function [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. The higher the negative number, the stronger the binding affinity of the ligand to a receptor [37]. The bound ligand to a receptor after molecular docking may be visualized to assess the molecular interactions between the ligand and the amino acid residues of the receptor binding site. Molecular docking is an inexpensive and time effective approach which could be useful in determining the relationship of expensive ergot alkaloids to various receptors, including both R and S-epimers.

Few studies have utilized a molecular docking approach to assess the interaction of ergot alkaloids to specific receptors. The binding of R-epimers and derivatives to receptors were investigated [28], [38], [39], however, the corresponding S-epimer binding was not assessed. One study assessed the affinity of ergotamine (R-epimer), and ergotaminine (S-epimer) to specific receptors [40]. The authors acknowledge there is a lack of S-epimer data concerning receptor binding. Another study screened multiple mycotoxins, including several R and S-epimers of ergot alkaloids, binding to nuclear receptors [41]. In each study, the S-epimer-receptor binding was not the primary focus. Therefore, the interaction of the S-epimers to receptors should be assessed in more detail.

The aim of this study was to assess if ergocristinine (S-epimer) binds to the vascular receptors, 5-HT 2 A and alpha 2 A adrenergic, and to compare the binding affinity and molecular interactions of ergocristinine to ergocristine (R-epimer), and lysergic acid diamide (structural analogue), utilizing AutoDock Vina and DockThor molecular docking software. To the authors knowledge, molecular docking assessment of ergocristinine to vascular receptors has not been evaluated. Moreover, since the S-epimers of ergot alkaloids are deemed inactive, but recent studies are demonstrating potential activity of the S-epimers, further investigation into the potential binding relationship to important biological receptors should be evaluated. The R-epimers bind to receptors, producing a biological response. The S-epimers are costly, therefore, the results of an in silico method may advise if future receptor binding assays are needed. The structures of ergocristinine, ergocristine and lysergic acid amide are presented in Fig. 1. The experiments were validated through redocking and assessing the relationship of the predicted binding affinities to experimental binding affinities.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Structures of a) ergocristinine, b) ergocristine, and c) lysergic acid amide.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Receptor protein

To investigate an ergocristinine – receptor binding relationship, the three-dimensional crystal structures of the receptors proteins were downloaded from Protein Data Bank (PDB) in a PDB format. Serotonin 2 A (5-HT 2 A) and alpha 2 A adrenergic were selected as the receptor proteins (PDB ID: 7WC6 and 6KUY, respectively). If the protein structures were in complex with a ligand or other molecules, the ligand or molecules were removed. The 5-HT 2 A and alpha 2 A adrenergic receptor were selected because of previous literature suggesting involvement of those receptors with ergot alkaloid exposure [23], [25], [42]. Exposure of R-epimers to vasculature ex vivo has demonstrated the involvement of the 5-HT 2 A and alpha 2 A adrenergic receptors in vascular contraction. These receptor classes are found in high amounts in the central and peripheral vasculature systems, respectively. Vascular contracture, because of ergot alkaloid exposure, can lead to detrimental health effects such as reduced blood flow to vital organs, and potentially loss of limbs. Since the 5-HT 2 A and alpha 2 A adrenergic receptors are involved with producing vascular constriction after R-epimer exposure, these two relevant receptor proteins were used to assess their potential involvement with S-epimer-receptor binding.

2.2. Ligands

The three-dimensional conformer molecular structure for the S and R-epimer, ergocristinine and ergocristine, and the structural analogue lysergic acid amide, were downloaded online from PubChem (PubChem CID: 31116 and 7067483, and 442072, respectively). The ligands were downloaded and saved as a SDS file.

2.3. Molecular docking

AutoDock MGL Tools (Molecular Graphics Laboratory, The Scripps Research Institute, Version 1.5.7), AutoDock Vina and PyMOL (PyMOL Molecular Graphics System, Version 2.0 Schrödinger, LLC) software were utilized. Molecular docking was preformed using the crystal structures of 5-HT 2 A and alpha 2 A adrenergic with ergocristinine (S), ergocristine (R), and lysergic acid amide.

In brief, AutoDockTools was used to prepare the protein (receptors) for docking. To prepare the protein, water molecules were removed, and polar hydrogen and charges (Kollman) were added. The protein was saved as a PDBQT file. To prepare the ligands, utilizing Pymol, the file was converted to a PDB format. Utilizing AutoDockTools, the PDB file was saved as a PDBQT file and selected for docking.

Once the protein and ligand are in PDBQT file format, a grid for the protein was prepared. The grid is the region of the receptor that the docking (binding) took place. The exploratory grid dimensions were estimated based on where the binding pocket is according to previous literature [39], [40], and where the agonists were bound to the receptors in the PDB files. The grid dimensions and parameters for 5-HT 2 A were center_x = −26.16, center_y = -− 15.96, center_z = 145.00; size_x = 30, size_y = 30, size_z = 30; energy_range = 4, exhaustiveness = 8. The grid dimensions and parameters for alpha 2 A adrenergic were center_x = 27.28, center_y = 1.96, center_z = 50.45; size_x = 30, size_y = 30, size_z = 30; energy_range = 4, exhaustiveness = 8. Docking was executed as flexible ligand docking with rigid receptors, which is a common approach [43]. The ligand bound to the receptor was visualized using Pymol.

DockThor [44] is a molecular docking software is freely available through the webserver. DockThor is a well-known molecular docking software [45]. The DockThor software utilized the same ligand and protein receptor files from the AutoDock Vina method, however, were converted back to PDB format. The standard search algorithm for molecular docking was utilized which included 24 runs. Soft docking was not executed. The grid dimensions were the same as the AutoDock Vina method for each receptor analyzed, however, a grid size of 20 for each dimension was required for the docking to occur.

2.4. Ligand-protein interactions

To assess the interactions between the bound ligand and the receptor, LigPlot+ was utilized. The ligand-receptor complex from AutoDock Vina was observed in the software LigPlot+ v.2.2.5. The amino acids residues of the binding site of the receptor interacting with the ligand were visualized. Hydrophobic interactions and hydrogen bonds were observed. Protein-Ligand Interaction Profiler (PLIP) was utilized to confirm data from LigPlot+ and to further analyze the data. The PLIP is available online [46], [47]. The aforementioned complexes were uploaded to the PLIP website as directed and analyzed.

2.5. Validation

Redocking was executed by extracting the ligand within the PDB crystal structure, for each receptor, 5-HT 2 A and alpha 2 A adrenergic (PDB ID: 7WC6 and 6KUY, respectively). The ligands were redocked to each respective receptor using the AutoDock Vina and DockThor molecular docking methods. The redocked ligand and crystal structure ligand were visually assessed for similarity in conformation for each binding pose. The most similar redocked and crystal conformation was used to calculate the root mean square deviation (RMSD) between structures. This method of validation through redocking has been executed recently [48], [49]. To calculate the RMSD, DockRMSD was utilized [50]. Both docked and crystalized ligand structures were uploaded as MOL 2 files and the RMSD was calculated without the use of hydrogens.

Comparing the AutoDock Vina binding affinities and experimental binding affinities were executed as follows. The aforementioned of AutoDock Vina docking method was executed on eight known ligands to the respective receptors. The experimental affinities of those ligands were investigated online and within the literature [51], [52], [53]. Ligand details can be found in the supplemental material. A correlation between the predicted and experimental binding affinities was assessed using SPSS 23 (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 23, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). A one-sample Kolmogorov Smirnov test was executed to determine if data was normally distributed (P > 0.05). Since data was normally distributed, a Pearson correlation was conducted, and the correlation was defined as significant at P < 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Molecular docking

The AutoDock Vina predicted binding affinities for the 5-HT 2 A receptor were − 9.7 kcal/mol, − 10.2 kcal/mol and − 9.3 kcal/mol for ergocristinine, ergocristine, and lysergic acid amide, respectively (Fig. 2a,b,c). For the for the alpha 2 A adrenergic receptor, the binding affinities were − 8.7 kcal/mol, − 10.3 kcal/mol, and − 9.4 kcal/mol for ergocristinine, ergocristine and lysergic acid amide, respectively (Fig. 3a,b,c). A summary and the DockThor binding affinities for each ligand-receptor complex are presented in Table 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

The binding of a) ergocristinine, b) ergocristine and c) lysergic acid amide to the serotonin (5-HT 2 A) receptor. The receptor protein is shown as a green colored ribbon cartoon, and the ligands are blue colored sticks. Side boxes highlight each ligand pose. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

The binding of a) ergocristinine, b) ergocristine and c) lysergic acid amide to the alpha 2 A adrenergic receptor. The receptor protein is shown as a green colored ribbon cartoon, and the ligands are blue coloured sticks. Side boxes highlight each ligand pose. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Table 1.

The molecular docking binding affinities (kcal/mol) of ergocristinine, ergocristine and lysergic acid amide to the serotonin (5-HT) 2 A receptor and alpha 2 A adrenergic receptor using AutoDock Vina and DockThor software.

5-HT 2 A
 Alpha 2 A Adrenergic
AutoDock Vina DockThor AutoDock Vina DockThor
Ergocristinine -9.7 -11.0 -8.7 -11.4
Ergocristine -10.2 -12.3 -10.3 -11.6
Lysergic Acid Amide -9.3 -8.4 -9.4 -9.3
Open in a new tab

3.2. Ligand-receptor interactions

The amino acid residues of the 5-HT 2 A and alpha 2 A adrenergic receptors formed a greater number of hydrophobic interactions to ergocristinine and ergocristinine, compared to lysergic acid amide using LigPlot+ (Table 2). Amino acid residues, Ser77 and Ile190, formed a hydrogen bond with ergocristinine at the 5-HT 2 A and alpha 2 A adrenergic receptor binding sites, respectively. The hydrogen bond lengths were 3.10 Å (Figs. 4a) and 3.29 Å (Fig. 5a). Ergocristine had formed the greatest number of hydrogen bonds to the amino acid residues of the 5-HT 2 A receptor, compared to the other complexes (Fig. 4b). The Asn363 formed a hydrogen bond with a length of 3.06 Å and Ser226 formed a hydrogen bond with a length of 3.11 Å. Ergocristine had formed one hydrogen bond to the Tyr109 of the alpha 2 A adrenergic receptor with a length of 2.89 Å (Fig. 5b). One hydrogen bond was formed between lysergic acid amide and the 5-HT 2 A receptor (Fig. 4c), and no hydrogen bonds were formed to the amino acid residues of the alpha 2 A adrenergic receptor (Fig. 5c). A further summary of the molecular interactions can be found in the supplemental material (Supplementary Tables 1 and 2).

Table 2.

The number of hydrophobic and hydrogen bond interactions between ergocristinine, ergocristine, and lysergic acid amide to the amino acid residues of the 5-HT 2 A and alpha 2 A adrenergic receptors using LigPlot+ .

5-HT 2 A
 Alpha 2 A Adrenergic
Hydrophobic Interactions Hydrogen Bonds Hydrophobic Interactions Hydrogen Bonds
Ergocristinine 10 1 13 1
Ergocristine 11 2 14 1
Lysergic Acid Amide 8 1 8 0
Open in a new tab

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Open in a new tab

Molecular interactions of a) ergocristinine, b) ergocristine and c) lysergic acid amide to the 5-HT 2 A receptor. Ligands are represented in blue ball and stick. The amino acid residue of the receptor binding site with a hydrogen bond to the ligand is represented in green and circled. All other amino acid residues formed hydrophobic interactions. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Open in a new tab

Molecular interactions of a) ergocristinine b) ergocristine and c) lysergic acid amide to the alpha 2 A adrenergic receptor. Ligands are represented in blue ball and stick. The amino acid residue of the receptor binding site with a hydrogen bond to the ligand is represented in green and circled. All other amino acid residues formed hydrophobic interactions. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Similar molecular interactions for each ligand receptor complex were observed using Protein-Ligand Interaction Profiler (PLIP) (Supplementary Tables 3 and 4). For the 5-HT 2 A and alpha 2 A adrenergic receptor, the same amino acid residues forming hydrogen bonds to ergocristine and ergocristinine as mentioned above, were observed. However, the bond distances were less according to the PLIP assessment. The Ser77 distance to ergocristinine was 2.07–2.1 Å and Ile190 was 2.67 Å for the 5-HT 2 A and alpha 2 A adrenergic receptors, respectively. The Asn363 and Ser226 distance to ergocristine had a range of 2.44–3.09 Å, for the 5-HT 2 A receptor. The hydrogen bond angles were closer to 180˚ for the 5-HT 2 A receptor, compared to the alpha 2 A adrenergic receptor. The PLIP tool further analyzes the protein-ligand complexes. Further hydrogen bonds, π-stacking, and a salt bridge between the amino acid residues of certain receptor-ligand complexes occurred.

3.3. Validation

The computational method of molecular docking has been validated and proven reliable [40]. The present study was successfully validated through redocking. Redocking was executed for each receptor, 5-HT 2 A and alpha 2 A adrenergic, using AutoDock Vina and DockThor software. AutoDock Vina and DockThor produced docking poses of the ligands that mimicked the ligands from the receptor crystalized structures. The RMSD between the visually similar docked ligand pose and the crystal structure ligand was < 2 Å for each receptor for both molecular docking software. A RMSD of < 2 Å between the docked and crystalized ligand is defined as acceptable and denotes pose similarity between ligands [48]. Therefore, the present study results are supported.

The comparison of AutoDock Vina predicted and experimental binding affinities using a large data set has previously been investigated and successfully demonstrated a relationship between the predicted and experimental binding affinities [26]. In the current study, a relationship between the AutoDock Vina binding affinities and experimental binding affinities was observed for each receptor. There was a significant correlation (P < 0.05) for the 5-HT 2 A receptor (Supplementary Fig. 1), and a nonsignificant (P > 0.05) correlation for the alpha 2 A adrenergic receptor (Supplementary Fig. 2). The correlation coefficients were 0.8 and 0.5 for the 5-HT 2 A and alpha 2 A adrenergic, respectively, demonstrating a strong to moderate correlation. The experimental binding affinities for the common ligands used for the 5-HT 2 A and alpha 2 A adrenergic receptor had varying affinity ranges (Supplementry Tables 5 and 6). The relationship between the docking scores and experimental affinities were based on the best possible outcome. If different experimental affinities were used, a relationship between the predicted binding affinities and the experimental affinities may not have occurred. Therefore, the variability of the experimental binding affinities indicates this method using a low number of ligands may be unreliable.

4. Discussion

Mycotoxins, such as ergot alkaloids, pose a threat to humans and animals through the consumption of ergot contaminated food and feed [2], [3]. Previously, the toxic effects of ergot alkaloids have been attributed to the R-epimers [5]. The R-epimers bind to vascular receptors causing vasoconstriction and subsequent adverse effects. Recently, studies have demonstrated vasoconstriction effects due to the S-epimers ex vivo [14], [15], warranting further S-epimer investigation. To the authors knowledge, in vitro studies assessing binding kinetics of the S-epimers of ergopeptine ergot alkaloids to vascular receptors has not been investigated, which may be due to the expensive nature of the S-epimers. The highlights of the present study are the use of an in silico method which demonstrated the S-epimer, ergocristinine, bound to two vascular receptors with strong interactions, and the receptor relationship differed from the corresponding R-epimer and structural analogue, which are discussed.

The use of an in silico method provides a cost and time effective approach to investigate a S-epimer – receptor relationship. A previous in silico study using ergotaminine (S-epimer) demonstrated binding affinities of − 7.8 kcal/mol and − 9.5 kcal/mol to the 5-HT 2 A and 5-HT 2B receptors using AutoDock Vina [40]. In the present study, ergocristinine (S-epimer) showed binding affinities of − 9.7 and − 8.7 kcal/mol to the 5-HT 2 A and alpha 2 A adrenergic receptors using AutoDock Vina. Differences in studies may be associated with the different S-epimers and receptors used. A binding energy value of − 7 represents a ligand having affinity for a receptor [41], and higher the negative value the stronger the binding affinity [37], which supports the results of the present study. In a different study utilizing ergocristinine, medium to high binding affinity to certain nuclear receptors was demonstrated [41], suggesting ergocristinine has the potential to have high affinity to receptors.

Short hydrogen bonds between a ligand and amino acid residues of a receptor binding site result in a strong interaction between the ligand and receptor [54]. The present study demonstrated shorter hydrogen bond distances between the S-epimer and the amino acid residues of both receptors compared to a previous study assessing ergotamine and 5-HT 1/2B receptors [38], [39]. The previous studies reported the hydrogen bonds provided stability to the epimer and strengthened the interactions, which supports the strong molecular interactions observed in the present study. The current study also showcased hydrogen bond angles close to 180˚, which results in strong interactions between the ligands and receptors [55]. The cost effective in silico analysis has demonstrated a significant S-epimer – vascular receptor relationship through assessing the binding affinity and strong molecular interactions, which has not been demonstrated previously.

In comparison to the S-epimers of ergot alkaloids, the R-epimers have been studied to a greater extent. The R-epimers of ergot alkaloids and derivatives have demonstrated high affinity to vascular receptors [29], [42], [56], [57], and higher affinity than endogenous ligands. The R-epimers have also demonstrated slow association and dissociation to vascular receptors [42], [58], [59], [60], which may be associated to the high receptor binding affinity. Endogenous ligands, such as serotonin, are unable to displace a R-epimer once it is bound to a receptor [56], supporting the strength of the bond between the ligand and receptor. The AutoDock Vina affinity values for ergocristine in the present study are comparable to a previous study utilizing AutoDock Vina [40], supporting the results in the present study. Ergocristine demonstrated the highest apparent binding affinities to the receptors and were different compared to ergocristinine and lysergic acid amide, which may be associated with differing chemical structures.

All ergot alkaloids share an ergoline ring in their chemical structure, however, have varying side chains. The ergoline ring has been reported to be the functional group that binds to receptors [61]. Ergocristinine and ergocristine differ in chemical structure with the configuration at the chiral carbon 8 [62], and lysergic acid amide does not have the amino acid ring system [5]. The structural differences may explain the differences in affinity and molecular interactions observed between compounds. Lower affinity of lysergic acid derivatives to receptors, compared to the R-epimers, have been suggested previously [29], and is supported in the present study. Structural similarities/differences of ergot alkaloids and their derivatives have an impact on the relationship to receptors [7], [58], [63] and small differences in ligand-receptor binding may influence downstream effects [7], [64]. Ergocristinine, ergocristine, and lysergic acid (structurally similar to lysergic acid amide) have all demonstrated varying downstream effects on vasculature [15], [29]. The epimer – receptor interactions lead to the adverse physical manifestations observed after ergot alkaloid exposure.

The high affinity of ergot alkaloids to vascular receptors may cause long lasting adverse effects. Cattle that were removed from an ergot contaminated pasture demonstrated signs of vasoconstriction many days after removal [23], supporting the high affinity of ergot epimers to vascular receptors. Recovery of ergot alkaloids in feces were low in a study of lambs fed ergot contaminated feed [65]. The authors attributed the low recovery to urinary excretion. However, the bioaccumulation of ergot alkaloids in vascular tissue [64], or the high affinity to vascular receptors [28], could be a potential explanation. Both R and S-epimers have demonstrated sustained vascular contraction of blood vessels, which supports the affinity of the epimers to vascular receptors observed in the present study [15], [29]. The implications of the affinity of ergot alkaloids to vascular receptors and sustained vasoconstriction could lead to chronic health conditions. Alpha-adrenergic receptors are abundant in the peripheral vasculature [66], which is where clinical manifestations of gangrene can take place. The affinity of the ergot epimers to the alpha 2 A adrenergic receptor may support the physiological alterations that occur. The present study supports the S-epimer contribution to vasoconstriction, which has been previously associated with the R-epimer.

5. Conclusions

Ergot alkaloids are found in high concentrations in food and feed commodities worldwide. The less studied S-epimer needed further investigation based on the potential bioactivity. The S-epimer, ergocristinine, demonstrated affinity and strong molecular interactions to vascular receptors, which may contribute to the adverse effects previously associated with the R-epimers. The studied ligands had different binding affinities and interactions to the vascular receptors which may be associated with structural differences. Since S-epimers such as ergocristinine are costly, the use of a low-cost method is economically favorable. The results of the present study demonstrated an interaction between the S-epimer and vascular receptors, therefore, future studies should include further docking assessments, molecular dynamics on the most promising complexes, and biological experiments to investigate and confirm the ergocristinine – receptor interactions. A limitation of the current study is the lack of protein conformation assessment which should be conducted in the future. The results of the present study have helped address the research gap of the S-epimers. Based on the high affinities and strong molecular interactions of the S-epimer to the vascular receptors, future assessments into the S-epimers of ergot alkaloids are encouraged.

Funding

This research was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), Canada Graduate Scholarships - Doctoral (CGS D) Program and the Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture - Agriculture Development Fund (ADF) (grant number: 20180361).

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Jensen E. Cherewyk: Data curation, Writing – original draft, Investigation, Validation, Formal analysis, Conceptualization, Methodology, Visualization. Barry R. Blakley: Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing, Resources. Ahmad N. Al-Dissi: Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing, Resources.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Markus Brinkmann for the support.

Handling Editor: Prof. L.H. Lash

Footnotes

Appendix A

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the online version at doi:10.1016/j.toxrep.2023.05.005.

Appendix A. Supplementary material

Supplementary material

mmc1.docx (93.2KB, docx)

.

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

References

  • 1.Porter J.K., Bacon C.W., Plattner R.D., Arrendale R.F., Safety T. Ergot peptide alkaloid spectra of claviceps-infected tall fescue, wheat, and barley. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1987;35:359–361. doi: 10.1021/jf00075a019. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Walkowiak S., Taylor D., Fu X., Drul D., Pleskach K., Tittlemier S.A. Ergot in Canadian cereals-relevance, occurrence, and current status. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 2022;44:793–805. doi: 10.1080/07060661.2022.2077451. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Agriopoulou S. Ergot alkaloids mycotoxins in cereals and cereal-derived food products: characteristics, toxicity, prevalence, and control strategies. Agronomy. 2021;11:931. doi: 10.3390/agronomy11050931. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Florea S., Panaccione D.G., Schardl C.L. Ergot alkaloids of the family clavicipitaceae. Phytopathology. 2017;107:504–518. doi: 10.1094/PHYTO-12-16-0435-RVW. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Klotz J. Activities and effects of ergot alkaloids on livestock physiology and production. Toxins. 2015;7:2801–2821. doi: 10.3390/toxins7082801. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Poapolathep S., Klangkaew N., Zhang Z., Giorgi M., Logrieco A.F., Poapolathep A. Simultaneous determination of ergot alkaloids in swine and dairy feeds using ultra high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Toxins. 2021;13:724. doi: 10.3390/toxins13100724. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Klotz J.L., Kirch B.H., Aiken G.E., Bush L.P., Strickland J.R. Contractile response of fescue-naïve bovine lateral saphenous veins to increasing concentrations of tall fescue alkaloids, J. Anim. Sci. 2010;88:408–415. doi: 10.2527/jas.2009-2243. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Krska R., Stubbings G., MacArthur R., Crews C. Simultaneous determination of six major ergot alkaloids and their epimers in cereals and foodstuffs by LC-MS-MS. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2008;391:563–576. doi: 10.1007/s00216-008-2036-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Smith D., Smith L., Shafer W., Klotz J., Strickland J. Development and validation of an LC-MS method for quantitation of ergot alkaloids in lateral saphenous vein tissue. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2009;57:7213–7220. doi: 10.1021/JF901086Q. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Kudupoje M.B., Klotz J.L., Yiannikouris A., Dawson K.A., McLeod K.R., Vanzant E.S. Contractile response of bovine lateral saphenous vein to ergotamine tartrate exposed to different concentrations of molecularly imprinted polymer. Toxins. 2018;10:1–16. doi: 10.3390/toxins10020058. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Stadler P.A., Stürmer E. Comparative studies on the pharmacological properties of stereoisomers of ergotamine and dihydro-ergotamine. Naunyn Schmiede Arch. Pharmakol. 1970;266:457–458. doi: 10.1007/BF00998098. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Pierri L., Pitman I.H., Rae I.D., Winkler D.A., Andrews P.R. Conformational analysis of the ergot alkaloids ergotamine and ergotaminine. J. Med. Chem. 1982;25:937–942. doi: 10.1021/jm00350a010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Mulac D., Hüwel S., Galla H.J., Humpf H.U. Permeability of ergot alkaloids across the blood-brain barrier in vitro and influence on the barrier integrity. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2012;56:475–485. doi: 10.1002/mnfr.201100431. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Cherewyk J.E., Parker S.E., Blakley B.R., Al-Dissi A.N. Assessment of the vasoactive effects of the (S)-epimers of ergot alkaloids in vitro. J. Anim. Sci. 2020;98:1–6. doi: 10.1093/jas/skaa203. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Cherewyk J.E., Parker S.E., Blakley B.R., Al-Dissi A.N. Sustained vascular contractile response induced by an R-and S-epimer of the ergot alkaloid ergocristine and attenuation by a noncompetitive antagonist. J. Anim. Sci. 2022;100:1–7. doi: 10.1093/jas/skac235. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Pertz H.H., Görnemann T., Schurad B., Seifert R., Straßer A. Striking differences of action of lisuride stereoisomers at histamine H1 receptors. Naunyn Schmiede Arch. Pharmacol. 2006;374:215–222. doi: 10.1007/s00210-006-0111-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kekewska A., Görnemann T., Jantschak F., Glusa E., Pertz H.H. Antiserotonergic properties of terguride in blood vessels, platelets, and valvular INterstitial Cells. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 2012;340:369–376. doi: 10.1124/jpet.111.187906. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Tittlemier S.A., Drul D., Roscoe M., Mckendry T. Occurrence of ergot and ergot alkaloids in western canadian wheat and other cereals. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2015;63:6644–6650. doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.5b02977. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Cherewyk J., Grusie-Ogilvie T., Blakley B., Al-Dissi A. Validation of a new sensitive method for the detection and quantification of R and S-epimers of ergot alkaloids in Canadian spring wheat utilizing deuterated lysergic acid diethylamide as an internal standard. Toxins. 2022;14:22. doi: 10.3390/TOXINS14010022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Andrae K., Merkel S., Durmaz V., Fackeldey K., Köppen R., Weber M., Koch M., Andrae K., Merkel S., Durmaz V., Fackeldey K., Köppen R., Weber M., Koch M. Investigation of the ergopeptide epimerization process. Computation. 2014;2:102–111. doi: 10.3390/computation2030102. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.R. Salzmann, T. Bucher. Actions of ergot alkaloids at adrenoceptors, in: Ergot alkaloids and related compounds, Chapter III, Basic Pharmacological Properties, 49 (1978) 140–177. ISBN 3-540-08475-4.
  • 22.Mulac D., Humpf H.-U. Cytotoxicity and accumulation of ergot alkaloids in human primary cells. Toxicology. 2011;282:112–121. doi: 10.1016/J.TOX.2011.01.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Klotz J.L., Aiken G.E., Bussard J.R., Foote A.P., Harmon D.L., Goff B.M., Schrick F.N., Strickland J.R. Vasoactivity and vasoconstriction changes in cattle related to time off toxic endophyte-infected tall fescue. Toxins. 2016;8:271. doi: 10.3390/toxins8100271. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Dyer D.C. Evidence that ergovaline acts on serotonin receptors. Life Sci. 1993;53:223–228. doi: 10.1016/0024-3205(93)90555-H. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Oliver J.W., Abney L.K., Strickland J.R., Linnabary R.D. Vasoconstriction in bovine vasculature induced by the tall fescue alkaloid lysergamide. J. Anim. Sci. 1993;71:2708–2713. doi: 10.2527/1993.71102708x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Egert A.M., Kim D.H., Schrick F.N., Harmon D.L., Klotz J.L. Dietary exposure to ergot alkaloids decreases contractility of bovine mesenteric vasculature. J. Anim. Sci. 2014;92:1768–1779. doi: 10.2527/jas.2013-7141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Strickland J.R., Bailey E.M., Abney L.K., Oliver J.W. Assessment of the mitogenic potential of the alkaloids produced by endophyte (Acremonium coenophialum)-infected tall fescue (festuca arundinacea) on bovine vascular smooth muscle in vitro. J. Anim. Sci. 1996;74:1664–1671. doi: 10.2527/1996.7471664x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ivanova B.B., Spiteller M. Derivatives of ergot-alkaloids: Molecular structure, physical properties, and structure-activity relationships. J. Mol. Struct. 2012;1024:18–31. doi: 10.1016/j.molstruc.2012.04.053. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Pesqueira A., Harmon D.L., Branco A.F., Klotz J.L. Bovine lateral saphenous veins exposed to ergopeptine alkaloids do not relax. J. Anim. Sci. 2014;92:1213–1218. doi: 10.2527/jas.2013-7142. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Okumura K., Koike K., Asai H., Takayanagi I. The selectivity of newly synthesized ergot derivatives to α1- and α2-adrenoceptors, D1- and D2-dopaminergic receptors, muscarinic acetylcholinoceptors and β-adrenoceptors. Gen. Pharmacol. 1988;19:463–466. doi: 10.1016/0306-3623(88)90048-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Madden J.C., Enoch S.J., Paini A., Cronin M.T.D. A review of in silico tools as alternatives to animal testing: principles, resources and applications. Altern. Lab. Anim. 2020;48:146–172. doi: 10.1177/0261192920965977. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Trott O., Olson A.J. AutoDock Vina: improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading. J. Comput. Chem. 2010;31:455–461. doi: 10.1002/jcc.21334. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Seeliger D., De Groot B.L. Ligand docking and binding site analysis with PyMOL and Autodock/Vina. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 2010;24:417–422. doi: 10.1007/S10822-010-9352-6/FIGURES/5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Yu R., Chen L., Lan R., Shen R., Li P. Computational screening of antagonists against the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) coronavirus by molecular docking. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents. 2020;56 doi: 10.1016/J.IJANTIMICAG.2020.106012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Sriramulu D.K., Wu S., Lee S.G. Effect of ligand torsion number on the AutoDock mediated prediction of protein-ligand binding affinity. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2020;83:359–365. doi: 10.1016/j.jiec.2019.12.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Ahmad S., Waheed Y., Abro A., Abbasi S.W., Ismail S. Molecular screening of glycyrrhizin-based inhibitors against ACE2 host receptor of SARS-CoV-2. J. Mol. Model. 2021;27:1–13. doi: 10.1007/S00894-021-04816-Y/TABLES/3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Xue Q., Liu X., Russell P., Li J., Pan W., Fu J., Zhang A. Evaluation of the binding performance of flavonoids to estrogen receptor alpha by Autodock, Autodock Vina and Surflex-Dock. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2022;233 doi: 10.1016/J.ECOENV.2022.113323. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Wang C., Jiang Y., Ma J., Wu H., Wacker D., Katritch V., Han G.W., Liu W., Huang X.-P., Vardy E., Mccorvy J.D., Gao X., Zhou X.E., Melcher K., Zhang C., Yang H., Yang L., Jiang H., Roth B.L., Cherezov V., Stevens R.C., Xu H.E. Structural basis for molecular recognition at serotonin receptors. Science. 1979;340(2013):610–614. doi: 10.1126/science.l234787. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Wacker D., Wang C., Katritch V., Han G.W., Huang X.-P., Vardy E., Mccorvy J.D., Jiang Y., Chu M., Siu Y., Liu W., Xu H.E., Cherezov V., Roth B.L., Stevens R.C. Structural features for functional selectivity at serotonin receptors. Science. 2013;340:615–619. doi: 10.1126/science.1232808. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Dellafiora L., Dall’Asta C., Cozzini P. Ergot alkaloids: from witchcraft till in silico analysis. Multi-receptor analysis of ergotamine metabolites. Toxicol. Rep. 2015;2:535–545. doi: 10.1016/j.toxrep.2015.03.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Spaggiari G., Morelli G., Riani M., Cozzini P. A synergism of in silico and statistical approaches to discover new potential endocrine disruptor mycotoxins. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2021;435 doi: 10.1016/j.taap.2021.115832. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.MacLennan S.J., Martin G.R. Actions of non-peptide ergot alkaloids at 5-HT1-like and 5-HT2 receptors mediating vascular smooth muscle contraction. Naunyn Schmiede Arch. Pharmacol. 1990;342:120–129. doi: 10.1007/BF00166953. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Meng X.-Y., Zhang H.-X., Mezei M., Cui M. Molecular docking: a powerful approach for structure-based drug discovery. Curr. Comput. Aided Drug Des. 2011;7:146–157. doi: 10.2174/157340911795677602. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Grupo de Modelagem Molecular de Sistemas Biológicos, DockThor, Version 2.0. https://www.dockthor.lncc.br/v2/. (Accessed on 27 November 2022).
  • 45.Torres P.H.M., Sodero A.C.R., Jofily P., Silva-Jr F.P. Key topics in molecular docking for drug design. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019;20:1–29. doi: 10.3390/ijms20184574. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Salentin S., Schreiber S., Haupt V.J., Adasme M.F., Schroeder M. PLIP: fully automated protein–ligand interaction profiler. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43:443–447. doi: 10.1093/NAR/GKV315. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Adasme M.F., Linnemann K.L., Bolz S.N., Kaiser F., Salentin S., Haupt V.J., Schroeder M. PLIP 2021: expanding the scope of the protein–ligand interaction profiler to DNA and RNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021;49:530–534. doi: 10.1093/NAR/GKAB294. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Triches F., Triches F., Lino de Oliveira C. Consensus combining outcomes of multiple ensemble dockings: examples using dDAT crystalized complexes. MethodsX. 2022;9 doi: 10.1016/j.mex.2022.101788. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Nayek U., Ibrahim Basheer Ahamed S., Halilunnisa Mansoor Hussain U., Kesavan Unnikrishnan M., Ajees Abdul Salam A. Computational investigations of indanedione and indanone derivatives in drug discovery: indanone derivatives inhibits cereblon, an E3 ubiquitin ligase component. Comput., Biol. Chem. 2022;101 doi: 10.1016/j.compbiolchem.2022.107776. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Bell E.W., Zhang Y. DockRMSD: an open-source tool for atom mapping and RMSD calculation of symmetric molecules through graph isomorphism. J. Chemin. 2019;11:1–9. doi: 10.1186/S13321-019-0362-7/FIGURES/5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Paulke A., Kremer C., Wunder C., Achenbach J., Djahanschiri B., Elias A., Schwed J.S., Hübner H., Gmeiner P., Proschak E., Toennes S.W., Stark H. Argyreia nervosa (Burm. f.): receptor profiling of lysergic acid amide and other potential psychedelic LSD-like compounds by computational and binding assay approaches. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2013;148:492–497. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2013.04.044. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.K. Altosaar, P. Balaji, R.A. Bond, D.B. Bylund, S. Cotecchia, D. Devost, V.A. Doze, D.C. Eikenburg, S. Gora, E. Goupil, R.M. Graham, T. Hébert, J.P. Hieble, R. Hills, S. Kan, G. Machkalyan, M.C. Michel, K.P. Minneman, S. Parra, D. Perez, R. Sleno, R. Summers, P. Zylbergold. Adrenoceptors (version 2019.3) in the IUPHAR/BPS Guide to Pharmacology Database. IUPHAR/BPS Guide to Pharmacology, 3 (2019). https://doi.org/10.2218/gtopdb/F4/2021.3. (Accessed 7 January 2023).
  • 53.R. Andrade, N.M. Barnes, G. Baxter, J. Bockaert, T. Branchek, A. Butler, M.L. Cohen, A. Dumuis, R.M. Eglen, M. Göthert, M. Hamblin, M. Hamon, P.R. Hartig, R. Hen, J. Hensler, K. Herrick-Davis, R. Hills, D. Hoyer, P.P.A. Humphrey, K.P. Latté, L. Maroteaux, G.R. Martin, D.N. Middlemiss, E. Mylecharane, J. Neumaier, S.J. Peroutka, J.A. Peters, B. Roth, P.R. Saxena, T. Sharp, A. Sleight, C.M. Villalon, F. Yocca. 5-Hydroxytryptamine receptors (version 2019.4) in the IUPHAR/BPS Guide to Pharmacology Database. IUPHAR/BPS Guide to Pharmacology. 4 (2019). https://doi.org/10.2218/gtopdb/F1/2019.4.(Accessed 7 January 2023).
  • 54.Behloul N., Baha S., Guo Y., Yang Z., Shi R., Meng J. In silico identification of strong binders of the SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2021;890 doi: 10.1016/J.EJPHAR.2020.173701. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Arunan E., Desiraju G.R., Klein R.A., Sadlej J., Scheiner S., Alkorta I., Clary D.C., Crabtree R.H., Dannenber J.J., Hobza P., Kjaergaard H.G., Legon A.C., Mennucci B., Nesbitt D.J. Definition of the hydrogen bond (IUPAC Recommendations 2011. Pure Appl. Chem. 2011;83:1637–1641. doi: 10.1351/PAC-REC-10-01-02. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Schöning C., Flieger M., Pertz H.H. Complex interaction of ergovaline with 5-HT2A, 5-HT1B/1D, and alpha1 receptors in isolated arteries of rat and guinea pig. J. Anim. Sci. 2001;79:2202–2209. doi: 10.2527/2001.7982202x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Hanoun N., Saurini F., Lanfumey L., Hamon M., Bourgoin S. Dihydroergotamine and its metabolite, 8′-hydroxy-dihydroergotamine, as 5-HT 1A receptor agonists in the rat brain. Br. J. Pharmacol. 2003;139:424–434. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjp.0705258. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Görnemann T., Jähnichen S., Schurad B., Latté K.P., Horowski R., Tack J., Flieger M., Pertz H.H. Pharmacological properties of a wide array of ergolines at functional alpha1-adrenoceptor subtypes. Naunyn Schmiede Arch. Pharmacol. 2008;376:321–330. doi: 10.1007/s00210-007-0221-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Saper J.R., Silberstein S. Pharmacology of dihydroergotamine and evidence for efficacy and safety in migraine. Headache. 2006;46:171–181. doi: 10.1111/J.1526-4610.2006.00601.X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Unett D.J., Gatlin J., Anthony T.L., Buzard D.J., Chang S., Chen C., Chen X., Dang H.T.M., Frazer J., Le M.K., Sadeque A.J.M., Xing C., Gaidarov I. Kinetics of 5-HT2B receptor signaling: profound agonist-dependent effects on signaling onset and duration. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 2013;347:645–659. doi: 10.1124/JPET.113.207670. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Reddy P., Hemsworth J., Guthridge K.M., Vinh A., Vassiliadis S., Ezernieks V., Spangenberg G.C., Rochfort S.J. Ergot alkaloid mycotoxins: physiological effects, metabolism and distribution of the residual toxin in mice. Sci. Rep. 2020;10:1–10. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-66358-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Crews C. Analysis of ergot alkaloids. Toxins. 2015;7:2024–2050. doi: 10.3390/toxins7062024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Haarmann T., Rolke Y., Giesbert S., Tudzynski P. Plant diseases that changed the world: ergot: from witchcraft to biotechnology. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2009;10:563–577. doi: 10.1111/j.1364-3703.2009.00548.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Klotz J.L., Kirch B.H., Aiken G.E., Bush L.P., Strickland J.R. Bioaccumulation of ergovaline in bovine lateral saphenous veins in vitro. J. Anim. Sci. 2009;87:2437–2447. doi: 10.2527/jas.2008-1692. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Coufal-Majewski S., Stanford K., McAllister T., Wang Y., Blakley B., McKinnon J., Lou Swift M., Chaves A.V. Effects of continuously feeding diets containing cereal ergot alkaloids on nutrient digestibility, alkaloid recovery in feces, and performance traits of ram lambs. Toxins. 2017;9:405. doi: 10.3390/toxins9120405. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Liu X., Luo D., Zhang J., Du L. Distribution and relative expression of vasoactive receptors on arteries. Sci. Rep. 2020;10:1–9. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-72352-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary material

mmc1.docx (93.2KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on request.

Articles from Toxicology Reports are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES