Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T15:19:11.296Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effects of addition of kaolin or cellulose to an elemental diet on intestinal cell proliferation in the mouse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

R. A. Goodlad
Affiliation:
Department of Histopathology, Royal Postgraduate Medical School, Hammersmith Hospital, Ducane Road, LondonW12 0HS
N. A. Wright
Affiliation:
Department of Histopathology, Royal Postgraduate Medical School, Hammersmith Hospital, Ducane Road, LondonW12 0HS
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. Various methods of estimating intestinal mass and cell proliferation were used to compare the effects of a pelleted laboratory diet (diet A), an elemental diet (Flexical; diet B), Flexical plus kaolin (diet C) and Flexical plus cellulose (diet D) on the mucosa and other tissues of the mouse small intestine and colon.

2. The weight of the distal third of the small intestine was significantly decreased in mice given diets B, C and D (P < 0·001). The length of the colon was significantly decreased in the mice given diets B (P < 0·001), C (P < 0·01) and D (P < 0·05); however, the weight of the colon was only decreased in the mice given diet B or diet C (P < 0·001).

Similar changes were noted in the weights of the intestinal muscle and serosa layers; however, no such changes were noted in the weight or DNA content of the mucosa.

3. No changes were observed in the crypt cell production rate in the small intestine, apart from an increase in the mid-region (P < 0·01) of mice given diet C, which was associated with a similar increase in the mucosal content of DNA.

Crypt-cell production was significantly decreased (P < 0·01, 0·001) in the two sites of the colon studied in the mice given diets B or C, but the crypt-cell production rates were not significantly different from control levels at either site in the mice given diet D.

4. The length of the colonic crypts was significantly decreased (P < 0·05, 0·02) in mice given diets B and C, but not in those given diet D; total cell number showed a similar change (P < 0·01, 0·05).

The correlation coefficient between the length of the colonic crypts and absolute cell number was 0·513.

5. The conclusion of the present study was that dietary fibre (cellulose), but not inert bulk (kaolin), prevents mucosal atrophy of the colon of mice given a fibre-free diet, and that many of the observed changes in intestinal weight are due to reduction in the bulk of the muscle layer.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1983

References

REFERENCES

Bury, K. D., Stephens, R. V., Cha, C. J. & Randall, H. T. (1974). Canadian Journal of Surgery 17, 124134.Google Scholar
Clarke, R. M. (1973). Laboratory Animals 9, 201209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummings, J. H. (1981). Gut 22, 763779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowling, R. H., Reicken, E. O., Laws, J. W. & Booth, C. C. (1967). Clinical Science 32, 19.Google Scholar
Ecknauer, R., Sircar, B. & Johnson, L. R. (1981). Gastroenterology 81, 781786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggum, B. O., Thorbek, G., Beames, R. M., Chwalibog, A. & Henckel, S. (1982). British Journal of Nutrition 48, 161175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenyo, G. & Hallberg, D. (1976). Acta Chirurgica Scandinavica 142, 270274.Google Scholar
Flatt, W. P., Warner, R. G. & Loosli, J. K. (1955). Journal of Dairy Science 41, 15931600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, M. L. G. & Plumb, J. A. (1981). Biochemical Pharmacology 30, 201207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havia, T. & Klossner, J. (1971). Annales Chirurgiae et Gynaecologiae 60, 132134.Google Scholar
Jacobs, L. R. & Schneeman, B. O. (1981). Journal of Nutrition 115, 798803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janne, P., Carpentier, Y. & Willems, G. (1977). American Journal of Digestive Diseases 22, 808812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Komai, M. & Kumura, S. (1980). Journal of Nutrition Science and Vitaminology 26, 389399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koretz, R. L. & Meyer, J. H. (1980). Gastroenterology 78, 393410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehnert, S. (1979). Cell & Tissue Kinetics 12, 239248.Google Scholar
LePecq, J. B. & Paoletti, C. (1966). Analytical Biochemistry 17, 100107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morin, C. L., Ling, V. & Bourassa, D. (1980). Digestive Diseases and Sciences 25, 123128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, L. M., Carmichael, H. A., Russel, R. I. & Lee, F. D. (1979). Clinical Science and Molecular Medicine 55, 509511.Google Scholar
Nelson, L. M., Russel, R. I. & Lee, F. D. (1981). Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition 5, 204206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyman, M. & Asp, N. G. (1982). British Journal of Nutrition 47, 357366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roediger, W. E. W. (1982). Gastroenterology 83, 424429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, G. P., Dudrick, S. J., Copeland, E. M. & Johnson, L. R. (1979). Gastroenterology 77, 658663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakata, T., Hikosaka, K., Shiomura, Y. & Tamate, H. (1980 a). British Journal of Nutrition 44, 325331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakata, T., Hikosaka, K., Shiomura, Y. & Tamate, H. (1980 b). In Cell Proliferation in the Gastrointestinal Tract, pp. 123137 [Appleton, D. R.Sunter, J. P. and Watson, A. C. editors] Bath: Pitman Press.Google Scholar
Storme, G. & Willems, G. (1981). Cell and Tissue Research 216, 221225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trowell, H. C. (1978). In Dietary Fibre: Current Developments of Importance to Health, pp. 18 [Heaton, K. W., editor] London: John Libbey.Google Scholar
Weser, E., Drummond, A. & Tawil, T. (1982). Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition 6, 3943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimber, D. E. & Lamerton, L. F. (1963). Radiation Research 18, 137146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, N. A. (1982). Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 17, (Suppl. 74), 311.Google Scholar
Wright, N. A. & Appleton, D. R. (1980). Cell and Tissue Kinetics 13, 643663.Google Scholar