Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-jwnkl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T13:16:02.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of protein deficiency upon peritoneal healing and peritoneal wound contraction in the rat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

T. J. Mott ,
E. C. Ashby ,
B. P. Flannery  and
H. Ellis
T. J. Mott
Affiliation:
Surgical Unit, Westminster Hospital, London, SWI
E. C. Ashby
Affiliation:
Surgical Unit, Westminster Hospital, London, SWI
B. P. Flannery
Affiliation:
Surgical Unit, Westminster Hospital, London, SWI
H. Ellis
Affiliation:
Surgical Unit, Westminster Hospital, London, SWI
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. Adult rats were maintained on a protein-deficient diet for 6 weeks following which laparotomy was performed and peritoneal wounds of standard size were constructed,

2. The diet resulted in a progressive weight loss and a fall in plasma protein. Tissue protein, expressed as percentage protein in dried voluntary muscle, did not fall significantly.

3. Following laparotomy the rats were killed in groups on successive days and the peritoneal wounds were removed for measurement of area and for histological examination.

4. There was no apparent difference between control and protein-deficient animals in the rate or extent of peritoneal wound contraction although there was histological evidence of delay of collagen formation in the protein-deficient animals. This supports the theory that collagen formation is not a function of wound contraction.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , August 1969 , pp. 497 - 504
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1969

References

Abercrombie, M., Flint, M. H. & James, D. W. (1954). J. Embryol. exp. Morph. 2, 264.Google Scholar
Abercrombie, M., Flint, M. H. & James, D. W. (1956). J. Embryol. exp. Morph. 4, 167.Google Scholar
Ellis, H., Harrison, W. & Hugh, T. B. (1965). Br. J. Surg. 52, 471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eskeland, G. (1966). Regeneration of Peritoneum. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google ScholarPubMed
Gordon, J. A., Smith, G. M. R. & Ellis, H. (1967). Br. J. Cancer 21, 763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Localio, S. A., Chassin, M. D. & Hinton, J. W. (1948). Surgery Gynec. Obstet. 86, 107.Google Scholar
Localio, S. A., Morgan, M. D. & Hinton, J. W. (1948). Surgery Gynec. Obstet. 86, 582.Google Scholar
Mott, T. J. & Ellis, H. (1967). Br. J. Urol. 39, 341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddan, J. R. & Rothstein, H. (1965). Exp. Cell Res. 40, 442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Udupa, J. N., Woessner, J. F. & Dunphy, J. E. (1956). Surgery Gynec. Obstet. 102, 639.Google Scholar
Venables, C., Ellis, H. & Burns, J. E. (1967). Br. J. Radiol. 40, 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, M. B., McCarthy, T. H. & Fromm, H. J. (1951). Proc. Soc. exp. Bid. Med. 77, 303.Google Scholar
Wolbach, S. B. & Howe, P. R. (1926). Archs Path. (Lab. Med.) I, 1.Google Scholar