Component

Adverse findings in a 90-day rat oral toxicology battery

Clinical signs, body weight, food consumption, urinalysis, ophthalmoscopy, haematology, blood chemistry, organ weights and histopathology, taken together as the endpoint of the subchronic study.

1 recorded relationships. Experimental role, claim status and evidence remain attached to each record.

How nutrients influence it

Every nutrient with a recorded effect on this component, credited to the nutrient that acted rather than the chapter that recorded it. Open a nutrient to see the findings and the conditions they were measured under.

How nutrients reach it in more than one step

Chains of two or more recorded steps that end here, grouped by the nutrient they start from. Each step is a separate finding, so a chain is a route a mechanism could take, not proof that it does.

Tracing routes…

What it does

Every recorded relationship this component is part of, grouped by its role. Plain wording comes first; the technical statement follows.

Recorded relationships

What acts on it

  1. In a 90-day oral study in Sprague-Dawley rats at 0, 100, 300 and 1,000 mg/kg body weight per day, the no-observed-adverse-effect level was 1,000 mg/kg per day, the highest dose tested.

    Experimental context and source evidence
    duration
    90 days
    evidence_access
    Primary PubMed abstract and indexed metadata reviewed. Full-text method details not stated here remain unresolved.
    experimental_model
    Rat (Sprague-Dawley, 12 per sex per group)
    exposure
    NSK-SD at 21,900 FU/g, up to 1,000 mg/kg body weight per day
    limitations
    A NOAEL at the highest dose tested is a floor, not a ceiling. The material was non-mutagenic and non-clastogenic in vitro, and a 4-week human tolerance study at 10 mg/kg per day reported no problems. None of this tests interaction with antithrombotic drugs or long-term disease outcomes. This study and the regulatory opinion share the same applicant dossier and are not independent of one another.
    organism
    Rat (Sprague-Dawley, 12 per sex per group)
    plain_language
    In a 90-day oral study in Sprague-Dawley rats at 0, 100, 300 and 1,000 mg/kg body weight per day, the no-observed-adverse-effect level was 1,000 mg/kg per day, the highest dose tested.
    primary_references
    Toxicological assessment of nattokinase derived from Bacillus subtilis var. natto. (2016) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26740078/ DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2015.12.025
    route
    In vivo, oral gavage
    tissue
    Subchronic oral toxicology battery

    Nattokinase: what the purified enzyme cleaves, what survives being eaten, and the gap between the two (2026-09-23) · lines 1379–1379

    Original AI-assisted curation built from a supplied entity-first document of 105 entities and 129 claims. Every reference in that document was resolved against live PubMed with its abstract read and its DOI cross-checked on 2026-09-23, and the EFSA novel-food opinion was retrieved and read in full. That check corrected two PMIDs that pointed at unrelated papers, two DOIs, and two papers recorded as carrying no erratum that do carry one; it also reversed three findings the supplied document had stated backwards. Two papers carry a published correction, recorded as such and not as a retraction. Three sources are not indexed in PubMed and are cited by what they have. Laboratory lineages are recorded, so the four papers from one group, the three from another and the two readings of a single applicant dossier cannot be counted as separate lines of support. Study-specific doses, units, populations and limitations retained; activity units are never converted between systems. Not publisher full text. · supports · Rat (Sprague-Dawley, 12 per sex per group) · source_derived_draft · unverified_draft

    In a 90-day oral study in Sprague-Dawley rats at 0, 100, 300 and 1,000 mg/kg body weight per day, the no-observed-adverse-effect level was 1,000 mg/kg per day, the highest dose tested.
    Complete structured claim and evidence

In the sources

Preserved passages that mention this component, quoted exactly. Open one to read it in context.

    This is a research prototype built from draft material. It is not medical advice, and its statements still await verification against the original studies.

    Evidence, AI assistance and curation standards