Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T01:42:52.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet on bone development in the fetuses of rat dams with streptozotocin-induced diabetes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

W. Keith Harvey  and
Tetsuo Nakamoto
W. Keith Harvey
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Perinatal Nutrition and Metabolism, Department of Orthodontics, Louisiana State University Medical Center, New Orleans, LA 70119, USA
Tetsuo Nakamoto
Affiliation:
Department of Physiology, Louisiana State University Medical Center, New Orleans, LA 70119, 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 purpose of the present study was to determine the effects of diet on the mandibles and growth centres of the long bones in the fetuses of diabetic rat dams given a normal diet compared with those given a high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet.

2. On the 9th day of gestation, the controls, groups 1 and 3, were injected with citrate buffer and given 200 and 600 g protein/kg diets respectively. Groups 2 and 4 were injected with 40 mg streptozotocin/kg body-weight and pair-fed with groups I and 3 respectively on the 200 and 600 g protein/kg diets.

3. On day 22, some dams were injected with either 45Ca or [14C]proline. Mandibles and long bones were removed and weighed and analysed for Ca content, 45Ca uptake, collagen and collagen synthesis.

4. The body-weights, and mandibular and long-bone weights of the fetuses in the diabetic 200 g protein/kg group were smaller than those of the non-diabetic 200 g protein/kg group, whereas those of the diabetic 600 g protein/kg group showed no difference from the non-diabetic 600 g protein/kg group.

5. The rate of collagen synthesis was higher in the fetuses of the diabetic 600 g protein/kg group than those of the non-diabetic group. Bones of the diabetic 200 g protein/kg group were lower in collagen content when compared with the non-diabetic group, whereas there was no difference between the diabetic and non-diabetic 600 g protein/kg groups.

6. Ca uptake and total Ca contents in the mandibles and long bones showed no difference between diabetic and non-diabetic groups fed on both diets.

7. A high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet appeared to have a certain beneficial effect on bone development of the growing fetuses from diabetic dams.

Type
Other Studies Relevant to Human Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 59 , Issue 1 , January 1988 , pp. 57 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1988

References

Bellush, L. A. & Rowland, N. E. (1986). Brain Research Bulletin 17, 653–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollet, A. J. (1970). Mt Sinai Journal of Medicine 38, 445–449.Google Scholar
Dixit, P. K. & Stern, A. (1979). Calcified Tissue International 27, 227–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eizirik, D. L. & Migliorini, R. H. (1984). Diabetes 33, 383–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eriksson, U. J. (1984) Journal of Nutrition 114, 477–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eriksson, U. J., Dalstrom, E. & Hellerstrom, C. (1983). Diabetes 32, 1141–1145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eriksson, U. J. & Jansson, L. (1984). Pediatric Research 18, 735–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, T. J., Downing, S. J. & Phang, J. M. (1971). American Journal of Physiology 220, 1717–1724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelvin, M. & Frost, M. (1964). Henry Ford Hospital Medical Bulletin 12, 527–536.Google Scholar
Krishmnamachar, S. & Canolty, N. L. (1985). Nutrition Research 5, 1375–1382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, M., Boisseu, V.Avioli, L. (1976). New England Journal of Medicine 294, 241–245.Google Scholar
Nakamoto, T. & Miller, S. A. (1979). Journal of Nutrition 109, 1469–1476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peng, Y., Meliza, L. L., Vavich, M. G. & Kemmerer, A. R. (1975). Journal of Nutrition 105, 1395–1404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkins, J. R., West, T. E. T., Sonksen, P. H., Lowry, C. & Iles, C. (1977). Diabetologia 13, 607–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, L. E. & Schedl, H. P. (1972). American Journal of Physiology 223, 1319–1323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneir, M., Ramamurthy, N. & Golub, L. (1982). Diabetes 31, 426–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, E. G., Trapp, V. E. & Schmidt, F. H. (1976). Diabetologia 12, 419–425.Google Scholar
Siegel, E. G., Trapp, V. E., Wollheim, C. B., Reynold, A. E. & Schmidt, F. H. (1980). Metabolism 5, 421–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigma Chemical Corp. (1982). Sigma Technical Bulletin. no. 510. St Louis, Mo.: Sigma Chemical Corp.Google Scholar
Silberberg, R., Hirshberg, G. E. & Lesker, P. (1977). Diabetes 26, 732–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uribe, M., Dibildox, M., Malpica, S., Guillermo, F., Villallobos, A., Nieto, L., Vargas, F. & Ramos, G. G. (1985). Gastroenterology 88, 901–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinman, J. P. & Sicher, H. (1955). Bone and Bones: Fundamentals of Bone Biology, pp. 57–58. St Louis, Mo.: C. V. Mosby Co.Google Scholar
Weiss, R. E. & Reddi, A. H. (1980). American Journal of Physiology 238, E200–207.Google Scholar
Wettenholl, R. H., Schwartz, P. L. & Bornstein, J. (1969). Diabetes 18, 280–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar