Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T16:08:22.818Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of some dietary changes upon the concentrations of serum lipids in rats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

D. Mcgregor
D. Mcgregor
Affiliation:
Flour-Milling and Baking Research Association, Old London Road, st albans, Herts
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. The responses of serum lipids of weanling and adult male rats to different diets have been examined. Total cholesterol, phospholipids and triglycerides were measured. The proteins used in the diets were casein and wheat gluten, the carbohydrates were starch and sucrose, and the main lipid source was groundnut oil supplemented with either gluten oil or maize oil.

2. In general, the type of carbohydrate did not influence the experimental results, whereas the type of protein had a marked effect. Compared with casein, gluten caused an increase in concentration of serum triglycerides, phospholipids and cholesterol in weanling rats, but there was no change in adult animals. Much of this ‘gluten effect’ in weanlings was not ob- served when the diet was supplemented with 0.7% L-lysine hydrochloride.

3. When 1% cholesterol was added to the gluten diets, the serum cholesterol concentrations were only slightly and variably affected in weanlings. Serum triglycerides and phospholipids were not altered in adult rats by the dietary cholesterol, whereas there were reductions in these lipid components in the weanlings, whether the protein was supplemented with L-lysine hydrochloride or not.

4. Gluten oil was not shown to be responsible for any major portion of the differences observed between gluten and casein in their effects upon the lipids of rat serum.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , March 1971 , pp. 213 - 224
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1971

References

Allen, R. J. L. & Leahy, J. S. (1966). Br. J. Nutr. 20, 339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, G. R. (1959). J. biol. Chem. 234, 466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowman, R. E. &Wolf, R. C. (1962). Clin. Chem. 8, 296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, L. A. & Wadström, L. B. (1959). Clinica chim. Acta 4, 197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, C. (1963). J. Nutr. 79, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, K. K. (1967). J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 44, 607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Groot, A. P. (1959). Nature, Lond. 184, 903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, D. B. (1955). Biometrics 11, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillios, L. C. & Mann, G. V. (1954). Metabolism 3, 16.Google ScholarPubMed
Fillios, L. C., Naito, C., Andrus, S. B., Portman, O. W. & Martin, R. S. (1958). Am. J. Physiol. 194, 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, J. H. & Foster, C. (1942). J. Nutr. 24, 245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nath, N., Harper, A. E. & Elvehjem, C. A. (1959). Can. J. Biochem. Physiol. 37, 1375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nath, N., Seidel, J. C. & Harper, A. E. (1961). J. Nutr. 74, 389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidel, J. C., Nath, N. & Harper, A. E. (1960). J. Lipid Res. 1, 474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, D. D., Conway, E. S., Schuster, E. M. & Adams, M. (1967). J. Nutr. 91, 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar