Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T02:53:55.780Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of dietary phosphorus supplementation on the uptake of radioactive strontium in rats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

G. E. Harrison ,
G. R. Howells ,
Jill Pollard ,
Krista Kostial  and
R. Manitaševi´c
G. E. Harrison
Affiliation:
Medical Research Council Radiobiological Research Unit, Harwell, Didcot, Berks
G. R. Howells
Affiliation:
Medical Research Council Radiobiological Research Unit, Harwell, Didcot, Berks
Jill Pollard
Affiliation:
Medical Research Council Radiobiological Research Unit, Harwell, Didcot, Berks
Krista Kostial
Affiliation:
Institute.for Medical Research, Zagreb, Yugoslavia
R. Manitaševi´c
Affiliation:
Institute.for Medical Research, Zagreb, Yugoslavia
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. After feeding radioactive markers 85Sr and 45Ca for 10 days to weanling and adult rats receiving basal diets all of which contained adequate calcium and phosphorus to support normal growth, the skeletal retention of the markers was compared with that in litter-mates receiving seven different P compounds as dietary supplements so that the P intake was increased 2 to 3½ times. 2. In weanling rats a dietary supplement of KH2PO4 decreased the skeletal retention of 85Sr by some 30% without affecting the retention of 46Ca. In adults on this supplement, the skeletal retention of 85Sr was reduced by over 40% compared with controls on the same basal diet. 3. When the supplement contained Ca as well as P the reduction in skeletal retention of 85Sr in young and adult rats was greater than when no Ca was present in the supplement. 4. It is concluded that there was no experimental evidence to show that supplements of P which also contained Ca induced any Ca deficiency in the rats. 5. In rats receiving P supplements which also contained Ca, the ratio of the skeletal retention of 85Sr, experimental to controls, was 0.45 for weanling rats and 0.52 in adults, 34 weeks old. These ratios were not significantly different for any of the seven supplements used. 6. From comparisons with previous experiments, it is concluded that supplementation with Ca plus P is more promising as a remedial measure for decreasing the uptake of radioactive Sr from the diet than supplementation with Ca alone.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , September 1966 , pp. 561 - 569
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1966

References

REFERENCES

Allen, R. J. L. (1940). Biochem. J. 34, 858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (1955). Official Methods of Analysis, 8th ed., p. 351. Washington DC: Association of Official Agricultural Chemists.Google Scholar
Bruce, R. S. (1963). Nature, Lond. 199, 1107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlqvist, B. & Nelson, A. (1960). Acta radiol. 54, 305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, T. E. F., Harrison, G. E., Loutit, J. F. & Sutton, A. (1965). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 24, 120.Google Scholar
Carr, T. E. F. & Parsons, B. (1962). Int. J. appl. Radiat. Isotopes 13, 57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Catsch, A. & Melchinger, H. (1959). Strahlentherapie, 109, 561.Google Scholar
Comar, C. L., Wasserman, R. H. & Nold, M. M. (1956). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. Med. 92, 859.Google Scholar
Harrison, G. E. (1964). Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 8, 177.Google Scholar
Howells, G., Wright, C. F. & Harrison, G. E. (1964). J. Anim. Techns Ass. 14, 137.Google Scholar
Kolthoff, I. M. & Sandell, E. B. (1952). Textbook of Quantitative Inorganic Analysis, 3rd ed. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Kostial, K., Lutkić, , Gruden, N., Vojvodić, S. & Harrison, G. E. (1963). Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 6, 431.Google Scholar
Kostial, K., Vojvodić, S., Gruden, N. & Lutkić, A. (1964). In Proceedings of the First European Bone and Tooth Symposium (1963), p. 111. [Blackwood, H. J. J., editor.] Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
McCance, R. A. & Widdowson, E. M. (1942–1943). J. Physiol., Lond. 101, 304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, N. S., Spain, P. C., Ezmirlian, F. & Rounds, D. E. (1955). J. Nutr. 57, 555.Google Scholar
Mellanby, E. (1925). Spec. Rep. Ser. med. Res. Coun., no. 3.Google Scholar
Palmer, R. F., Thompson, R. C. & Kornberg, H. A. (1958). Science, N. Y. 128, 1505.Google Scholar
Ray, R. D., Stedman, D. E. & Wolff, N. K. (1956). J. Bone Jt Surg. 384, 637.Google Scholar
Schubert, J. (1958). Atompraxis 4, 393.Google Scholar
Spencer, H. (1963). In Diagnosis and Treatment of Radioactive Poisoning, 1962, p. 145. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.Google Scholar
Spencer, H., Menczel, J. & Samachson, J. (1964). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. Med. 117, 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Putten, L. H. (1962). Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 5, 471.Google Scholar
Volf, V. (1965). Experientia 21, 571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volf, V. & Roth, R. (1965). Acta radiol. 3, 216.Google Scholar
Wasserman, R. H. & Comar, C. L. (1960). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. Med. 103, 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar