Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T14:32:02.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reproduction and vision in rats maintained on a retinol-free diet containing 3-dehydroretinol (vitamin A2)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

J. McC. Howell ,
J. N. Thompson  and
G. A. Pitt
J. McC. Howell
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Pathology, University of Liverpool
J. N. Thompson
Affiliation:
Department of Biochemistry, University of Liverpool
G. A. Pitt
Affiliation:
Department of Biochemistry, University of Liverpool
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Seventeen hooded female rats were given from weaning a retinol-free diet containing methyl retinoate. When 105 days old they were mated with normal bucks.

2. Six of these rats were subsequently given dietary supplements of 100 μg retinol daily and another six were given 100 μg 3-dehydroretinol daily. All twelve rats had litters.

3. The five rats that received only methylretinoate during pregnancy resorbed their foetuses.

4. One of the litters from the female rats given 3-dehydroretinol consisted of six male pups. These young rats had never had access to retinol. They were maintained on a retinol-free diet supplemented with methyl retinoate. Two of these rats were given daily supplements of 3-dehydroretinol and another pair were given daily an equal amount of retinol.

5. The six rats were killed when 195 days old. The testes and the retina of the rats given either 3-dehydroretinol or retinol were normal. The testes and the retina of the rats given methylretinoate only were degenerate.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , May 1967 , pp. 373 - 376
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1967

References

Dowling, J. E. & Wald, G. (1960). Proc. natn. Acad. Sci., Wash. 46, 587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howell, J.McC., Thompson, J. N. & Pitt, G. A. J. (1963). J. Reprod. Fertil. 5, 159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howell, J.McC., Thompson, J. N. & Pitt, G. A. J. (1964). J. Reprod. Fertil. 7, 251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millard, E. B. & McCann, W. S. (1949). J. appl. Physiol. 1, 807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, T. (1953). Symposium on Nutrition, p. 28. [Herriott, R.M., editor.] Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Shantz, E. M. (1948). Science, N.Y. 108, 417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shantz, E. M. & Brinkman, J. H. (1950). J. biol. Chem. 183, 467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shantz, E. M., Embree, N. D., Hodge, H. C. & Wills, J. H. Jr (1946). J. biol. Chem. 163, 455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundaresan, P. R. & Cama, H. R. (1961). Br. J. Nutr. 15, 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, J. N., Howell, J. McC. & Pitt, G. A. J. (1964). Proc. R. Soc. B 159, 510.Google Scholar
Wald, G. (1953). Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. Biol. 12, 606.Google Scholar