Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-dwq4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T16:39:58.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of diet on some metabolic enzymes in the small intestinal mucosa during lactation in the rat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Maureen F. Palmer  and
B. A. Rolls
Maureen F. Palmer
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
B. A. Rolls
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
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. Five groups of rats were investigated: (a) unmated rats allowed free access to a commercial stock rodent diet (NP group); (b) rats in the second week of lactation allowed free access to the stock diet; (c) rats in the second week of lactation allowed only that amount of the stock diet eaten by the NP group; (d) rats in the second week of lactation allowed that amount of the stock diet eaten by the NP group and in addition free access to a high-energy, protein-free supplement; (e) rats in the second week of lactation allowed that amount of the stock diet eaten by the NP group and in addition free access to a protein supplement.

2. The weight and length of the small intestine, the mucosal content of protein and of DNA and the mucosal activities of alkaline phosphatase (EC 3.1.3.1), acid phosphatase (EC 3.1.3.2), isocitric de- hydrogenase (NADP+)(EC 1.1.1.42)and glucose-6-phosphatase (EC 3.1.3.9) were measured in individual animals.

3. For the factors investigated it was, with few exceptions, found that: there were markedly higher values in lactating animals allowed unrestricted access to food than in unmated animals; in restricted lactating animals the values were considerably lower than in unrestricted lactating rats and often similar to those in unmated animals; supplements of dietary energy restored none or only a proportion of the in- creases usually found in lactation but a protein supplement restored most or all these increases. Reasons for departure from this general picture on the part of some factors are discussed.

4. The results presented here support the view that changes found in lactation are hormonally induced but governed by nutrient availability, that protein is the important nutrient raw material but that dietary energy can support some changes probably by a ‘protein-sparing’ effect. Some changes appear to be less susceptible to the effects of dietary restriction, whether of protein or total energy. It is suggested that the additional nutrients eaten by unrestricted lactating rats permit the development of more, but less mature, enterocy tes.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , July 1980 , pp. 89 - 97
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1980

References

REFERENCES

Allen, R. I. L. (1940). Biochem. J. 34, 858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandenberger, H. & Hanson, R. (1953). Helr. chim. Acta 36, 900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, K. (1956). Biochem. J. 62, 315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, R. M. & Fell, B. F. (1963). J. Physiol., Lond. 171, 90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colilla, W., Jorgensen, R. A. & Nordlie, R. C. (1975). Biochem. biophys. Acta 377, 117.Google Scholar
Craft, I. L. (1970). Clin. Sci. 38, 287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fell, B. F. (1977). Rep. Rowett Inst. 33, 97.Google Scholar
Fernley, H. N. (1971). In The Enzymes, Vol. 4, p. 421 [Boyer, P. D., editor]. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fiske, C. H. & Subbarow, Y. (1925). J. biol. Chem. 66, 375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleck, A. & Munro, H. N. (1962). Biochim. biophys. Acta 55, 571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garland, P. B. (1968). In The Metubulic Roles of Citrate, p. 41 [Goodwin, T. W., editor]. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Green, I. C. & Taylor, K. W. (1974). J. Enducr. 62, 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, R. J., Newey, H. & Smyth, D. H. (1962). J. Physiol., Lond. 164, 21P.Google Scholar
Lowry, O. H., Rosebrough, N. J., Farr, A. L. & Randall, R. J. (1951). J. biol. Chem. 193, 265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lygre, D.G.& Nordlie, R. C. (1968). Biochemistry, Euston 7, 3219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ochoa, S. (1948). J. biol. Chem. 174, 133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, M. F. & Rolls, B. A. (1980). J. Reprod. Fert. (In the Press).Google Scholar
Rolls, B. A. (1975). Br. J. Nutr. 33. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rolls, B. A., Henschel, M. J. & Palmer, M. F. (1979). Br. J. Nutr. 41, 573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. M.& Plaut, G. W. E. (1979). Eur. J. Biochem. 97, 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, A. M., Stein, J. H. & Kirkman, S. K. (1967). Biochemistry, Easton 6, 1370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanson, M. A. (1955). Meth. Enzym. 2, 541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar