# Pulsed Electric Fields (PEF) to Mitigate Emerging Myotoxins in Juices and Smoothies
## 3 Results and Discussion
### In Silico Prediction Methods
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Tox21 Nuclear Receptor Signaling Pathways (\%: Probability)**} \\ \cline{2-7}
**Mycotoxin** & **Aryl** & & & & & & **Enrogen** & **Perosiome** \\
**(Degradation Product)** & **Hydrocarbon Receptor (AdR)** & **Androgen Receptor (AdR)** & **Receptor Ligand Binding Domain** & **Aromatase** & **Receptor Ligand Binding Domain** & **Receptor Gamma** \\  & **(AdR)** & & **(AR-LBD)** & & **Alpha (ER)** & **(ER-LBD)** & **(PPAR-Gamma)** \\ \hline ENA & Inactive (97) & Inactive (95) & Inactive (97) & Inactive (98) & Inactive (87) & Inactive (97) & Inactive (98) \\ ENA1 & Inactive (97) & Inactive (95) & Inactive (97) & Inactive (98) & Inactive (87) & Inactive (97) & Inactive (98) \\ ENB & Inactive (98) & Inactive (97) & Inactive (99) & Inactive (98) & Inactive (96) & Inactive (98) \\ ENB1 & Inactive (97) & Inactive (96) & Inactive (99) & Inactive (99) & Inactive (90) & Inactive (97) & Inactive (93) \\ BEA & Inactive (93) & Inactive (95) & Inactive (98) & Inactive (95) & Inactive (89) & Inactive (97) & Inactive (95) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
* Degradation product (2).  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Toxicological pathways: Nuclear receptor signaling pathways predicted for detected mycotoxins. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Classification**} \\ \cline{2-5}
**Mycotoxin** & **Organ Toxicity** & & & **Toxicity Endpoint** \\ **(Degradation Product)** & **(\% Probability)** & & & **(\% Probability)** & \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Hepatotoxicity** & **Carcinogenicity** & **Immunotoxicity** & **Mutagenicity** & **Cytotoxicity** \\ \hline ENA & Inactive (74) & Inactive (56) & Inactive (83) & Inactive (68) & Inactive (63) \\ ENA1 & Inactive (74) & Inactive (56) & Inactive (83) & Inactive (68) & Inactive (63) \\ ENB & Inactive (76) & Inactive (58) & Inactive (77) & Inactive (68) & Inactive (58) \\ *ENB & Inactive (76) & Inactive (58) & Inactive (89) & Inactive (77) & Inactive (64) \\ ENB1 & Inactive (75) & Inactive (56) & **Active (51)** & Inactive (76) & Inactive (66) \\ BEA & Inactive (97) & Inactive (97) & Inactive (91) & Inactive (96) & Inactive (95) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
* Degradation product (2).  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Organ toxicity and toxicological endpoint predictions calculated using the ProTox-II web server. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Tox21 Nuclear Receptor Signaling Pathways (\%: Probability)**} \\ \cline{2-7}
**Mycotoxin** & **Aryl** & & & & **Enrogen** & **Enrogen** & **Perosiome** \\
**(Degradation Product)** & **Hydrocarbon Receptor (AdR)** & **Acrogen Receptor (AdR)** & **Receptor Ligand Binding Domain** & **Receptor Ligand Binding Domain** & **Receptor Gamma** \\  & **(AdR)** & & **(AR-LBD)** & & **Alpha (ER)** & **(ER-LBD)** & **(PPAR-Gamma)** \\ \hline ENA & Inactive (97) & Inactive (95) & Inactive (97) & Inactive (98) & Inactive (87) & Inactive (97) & Inactive (98) \\ ENA1 & Inactive (97) & Inactive (95) & Inactive (97) & Inactive (98) & Inactive (87) & Inactive (97) & Inactive (98) \\ ENB & Inactive (98) & Inactive (97) & Inactive (99) & Inactive (88) & Inactive (83) & Inactive (96) & Inactive (98) \\ ENB1 & Inactive (98) & Inactive (95) & Inactive (97) & Inactive (99) & Inactive (96) & Inactive (97) & Inactive (96) \\ ENB1 & Inactive (97) & Inactive (96) & Inactive (99) & Inactive (99) & Inactive (90) & Inactive (97) & Inactive (93) \\ BEA & Inactive (93) & Inactive (95) & Inactive (98) & Inactive (95) & Inactive (89) & Inactive (97) & Inactive (95) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
* Degradation product (2).  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Toxicological pathways: Stress response pathways predicted for detected mycotoxins. The obtained probability scores in Tables 4 and 5 showed an adequate accuracy in predicted values, ranging from 83% to 99%. However, for organ toxicity and toxicity endpoints (especially for carcinogenicity) (Table 3), probability scores were low and had high variability (51-91%).