Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T23:22:52.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of prostaglandins on unidirectional zinc fluxes across the small intestine of the rat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Moon K. Song ,
David B. N. Lee  and
Nabeel F. Adham
Moon K. Song
Affiliation:
Research, Veterans Administration Medical Center, Sepulveda, CA 91343, USA
David B. N. Lee
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, University of California School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA 90024, USA
Nabeel F. Adham
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, University of California School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA 90024, USA
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 regulatory role of prostaglandins (PGs) E2 and F2a on the zinc transport rate across the jejunal segments of rats was examined by employing the Ussing chamber technique. The Zn flux rate from mucosa to serosa across jejunal segments (Jms) was 5·24 (SE 1·54) nmol/h per cm2 (n 48) and that from serosa to mucosa (Jsm) was 15·16 (SE 2·38) nmol/h per cm2 (n 48) when both sides of the segment were bathed with Ringer's bicarbonate solution containing 0·5 mM-zinc chloride and 3 mM-L-histidine.

2. When 5·0 or 50 μM of either PGE2 or PGF2α were added to the serosal side of the tissue, Jsm generally decreased and Jms generally increased, compared with controls. On the other hand, when PGE2 or PGF2α was added to the mucosal side of the tissue, Jms either did not change or increased while Jsm had a tendency to decrease.

3. The Zn uptake capacity of tissue increased significantly when PG was added to the serosal side of the tissuebathing medium, but not when PG was added to the mucosal side. The uptake capacity of mucosal Zn by jejunal segments was approximately twice that of serosal Zn.

4. When PG was included in the tissue-bathing medium, the short-circuit current, potential difference and conductance between the mucosa- and serosa-bathing media generally decreased.

5. These results suggest that (a) PGs influence Zn flux rate not by chelating Zn and carrying it across the mucosal cell membrane but by interacting with the cytosolic components, (b) it is the serosal PGs which control the Zn flux rate and (c) PGs play a part in triggering a transduction mechanism in the intestinal Zn transport process.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 59 , Issue 3 , May 1988 , pp. 417 - 428
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1988

References

Biber, T. U. L., DeSimone, J. A. & Drewnoska, K. (1986). Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 862, 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castro-Magana, M., Collipp, P. J., Chen, S. Y., Cheruvanky, T. & Maddaiah, V. T. (1981). American Journal of Diseases of Children 135, 322–325.Google Scholar
Cousins, R. J. (1979 a). Nutrition Reviews 37, 97–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousins, R. J. (1979 b). American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 32, 339–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousins, R. J., Smith, K. T., Failla, M. L. & Markowitz, L. A. (1978). Life Sciences, 23 1819–1826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, R. M. & Andreoli, T. E. (1983). Journal of Clinical Investigation, 71 1588–1601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunnane, S. C. (1982). Pediatric Research, 16 559–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etzel, K. R., Shapiro, S. G. & Cousins, R. J. (1979). Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 89 1120–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, G. W., Grace, C. I. & Vetava, H. J. (1975). American Journal of Physiology, 228 501–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, G. W. & Johnson, P. E. (1980). Pediatric Research, 14 876–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frizzell, R. A. & Schultz, S. G. (1972). Journal of General Physiology, 59 318–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamberg, M. & Samuelsson, B. (1971). Journal of Biological Chemistry, 246 6713–6721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurley, L. S., Lonnerdal, B. & Stanislowski, A. G. (1977 a). Lancet i, 677.Google Scholar
Hurley, L. S., Sloan, M. V., Duncan, J. F. & Eckhert, C. D. (1977 b). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 74 3547–3549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latman, N. S., Sorensen, J. R. J. & Kishore, V. (1984). Hormone Research, 20 192–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, D. B. N. (1983). Journal of Clinical Investigation, 71 322–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lonnerdal, B., Schneeman, B. O., Keen, C. I. & Hurley, L. S. (1980). Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry, 12 71–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menard, M. P. & Cousins, R. J. (1983). Journal of Nutrition, 113 1434–1442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendoza, S. A. (1973). American Journal of Physiology, 225 476–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, W. N., Schwink, T. & Reich, M. (1966). In Zinc Metabolism, pp. 239–249 [Prasad, A. S., editor]. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
Rask-Madsen, J. (1986). Clinics in Gastroenterology, 15 545–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singhal, R. L., Tsang, B. K. & Sutherland, D. J. B. (1976). In Cellular Mechanisms Modulating Gonadal Hormone Action, pp. 325–424 [Singhal, R. and Thomas, J. A., editors]. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Song, M. K. & Adham, N. F. (1978). American Journal of Physiology 234, E99–E105.Google Scholar
Song, M. K. & Adham, N. F. (1979). Journal of Nutrition 109, 2152–2159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, M. K., Adham, N. F. & Ament, M. E. (1984). Biological Trace Element Research 6, 181–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, M. K., Adham, N. F. & Ament, M. E. (1985). Nutrition Reports International 32, 71–82.Google Scholar
Ussing, H. H. & Zerahn, K. (1951). Acta Physiologica Scandinavica 23, 110–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wapnir, R. A., Khani, D. E., Bayne, M. A. & Lifshitz, A. J. (1983). Journal of Nutrition 113, 1346–1354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar