Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T23:36:33.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The biological activity of retinoic acid in the domestic fowl and the effects of vitamin A deficiency on the chick embryo

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

J. N. Thampson ,
J. McC. Howell ,
G. A. J. Pitt  and
Catherine I. McLaughlin
J. N. Thampson
Affiliation:
Departments of Biochemistry and Veterinary Pathology, University of Liverpool
J. McC. Howell
Affiliation:
Departments of Biochemistry and Veterinary Pathology, University of Liverpool
G. A. J. Pitt
Affiliation:
Departments of Biochemistry and Veterinary Pathology, University of Liverpool
Catherine I. McLaughlin
Affiliation:
Departments of Biochemistry and Veterinary Pathology, University of Liverpool
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. Male and female chickens were reared from hatching on vitamin A-free diets, either unsupplemented or containing retinoic acid (vitamin A acid), methyl retinoate or retinyl acetate (vitamin A acetate). The birds given retinyl acetate grew well and had a normal appearance, but those given the unsupplemented diet died before 4 weeks of age after developing typical signs of avitaminosis A. The birds given retinoic acid or methyl retinoate did not show overt signs of vitamin A deficiency or other abnormalities except for a progressive failure of vision. Minimal histological changes were found in their retinas, and their vision was rapidly restored after feeding with retinyl acetate.

2. The cocks maintained with retinoic acid or methyl retinoate had normal testes and the hens laid eggs at a normal rate, but although their eggs could be obtained fertile the development of the embryo became abnormal after 2 days incubation and it always died. The development of the embryos could be stimulated and sometimes restored to normal by injection of various forms of vitamin A into the eggs before incubation, or by previous administration of retinyl acetate to the hens.

3. It is concluded that feeding retinoic acid as the sole source of vitamin A enables the hen to produce eggs that lack vitamin A but are otherwise normal, thus permitting the demonstration of a hitherto undescribed requirement of the early chick embryo for vitamin A.

4. The toxicity of vitamin A derivatives to chick embryos was investigated; injected retinoic acid was found to be extremely toxic.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , August 1969 , pp. 471 - 490
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1969

References

Almquist, H. J. & Mecchi, E. (1939). Poult. Sci. 18, 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arens, J. F. & van Dorp, D. A. (1946). Nature, Lond. 157, 190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arens, J. F. & van Dorp, D. A. (1949). Produits pharm. 4, 249.Google Scholar
Bohren, B. B., Carrick, C. W. & Andrews, F. N. (1945). Rep. agric. Exp. Stn Purdue Univ. no. 37.Google Scholar
Briggs, G. M., Spivey, M. R., Keresztesy, J. C. & Silverman, M. (1952). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. Med. 81, 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, D. M. (1963). Br. vet. J. 119, 194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Man, T. J., van Leeuwen, P. H. & Roborgh, J. R. (1964). Nature, Lond. 201, 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowling, J. E. & Wald, G. (1960). Roc. natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 46, 587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elvehjem, C. A. & Neu, V. F. (1932). J. biol. Chem. 97, 71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmett, A. D. & Peacock, G. (1923). J. biol. Chem. 56, 679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrand, R. H. & Bohren, B. B. (1948). Poult. Sci. 27, 759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, M. R. S. & Briggs, G. M. (1960). J. Nutr. 72, 243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glover, J., Goodwin, T. W. & Morton, R. A. (1948). Biochem. J. 43, 109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamburger, V. & Hamilton, H. L. (1951). J. Morph. 88, 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, E. B., Steenbock, H., Lepkovsky, S. & Halpin, J. G. (1924). J. biol. Chem. 60, 341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howell, J. McC. & Thompson, J. N. (1965). Br. J. exp. Path. 46, 18.Google Scholar
Howell, J. McC. & Thompson, J. N. (1967 a). Br. J. Nutr. 21, 741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howell, J. McC. & Thompson, J. N. (1967 b). Br. J. exp. Path. 48, 450.Google Scholar
Howell, J. McC., Thompson, J. N. & Pitt, G. A. J. (1963). J. Reprod. Fertil. 5, 159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howell, J. McC., Thompson, J. N. & Pitt, G. A. J. (1964). J. Reprod. Fertil. 7, 251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howell, J. McC., Thompson, J. N. & Pitt, G. A. J. (1967). Br. J. Nutr. 21, 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, P. M. & Comar, C. L. (1957). J. biophys. biochem. Cytol. 3, 231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jungherr, E. (1943). Bull. Storrs agric. Exp. Stn no. 250.Google Scholar
Krishnamurthy, S., Bieri, J. G. & Andrews, E. L. (1963). J. Nutr. 79, 503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landauer, W. (1961). Monogr. Storrs agric. Exp. Stn no. 1.Google Scholar
Lowe, J. S., Morton, R. A., Cunningham, N. F. & Vernon, J. (1957). Biochem. J. 67, 215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClymont, G. L. & Hart, L. (1948). Aust. vet. J. 24, 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, K. E. (1939). In Sex and Internal Secretions, 2nd ed., p. 1149. [ Allen, E., editor.] Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.Google Scholar
Moore, T. (1953). In Symposium on Nutrition, p. 28. [Herriott, R. M., editor.] Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Moore, T. (1957). Vitamin A. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Morgan, B. & Thompson, J. N. (1966). Biochem. J. 101, 835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robeson, C. D. (1952). U.S. Patent 2583594.Google Scholar
Rubin, M. & Bird, H. R. (1942). Bull. Md agric. Exp. Stn no. A12, p. 339.Google Scholar
Schumacher, A. E., Scott, H. M., Hughes, J. S. & Peterson, W. J. (1944). Poult. Sci. 23,529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seifried, O & Köcher, E. (1943). Z. InfektKranch. parasit. Krankh. Hyg. Haustiere 95, 32.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. N., Howell, J. McC. & Pitt, G. A. J. (1964). Proc. R. Soc. B 159, 510.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. N., Howell, J. McC. & Pitt, G. A. J. (1965). In Biological Council Symposium on Agents Affecting Fertility, p. 34. [Austin, C. R. and Perry, J. S., editors.] London: Churchill.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. N., Howell, J. McC., Pitt, G. A. J. & Houghton, C. I. (1965). Nature, Lond. 205, 1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varandani, P. T., Wolf, G. & Johnson, B. C. (1960). Biochem. biophys. Res. Comm. 3, 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagener, K. & Harms, F. (1943). Z. InfektKrankh. parasit. Krankh. Hyg. Haustiere 95, 303.Google Scholar
Wald, G., Brown, P. K. & Smith, P. H. (1953). Science, N Y. 118, 505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wald, G., Brown, P. K. & Smith, P. H. (1954–5). J. gen. Physiol. 38, 623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walls, G. L. (1942). The Vertebrate Eye and its Aduptiwe Radiation, p. 661. Bloomfield Hills, Michigan: Cranbrook Institute of Science.Google Scholar
Wolbach, S. B. & Hegsted, D. M. (1952). Arch Path. 54, 13.Google Scholar