Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:13:41.731Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of the gut microflora and of dietary fibre on epithelial cell migration in the chick intestine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

B. A. Rolls ,
A. Turvey  and
Marie E. Coates
B. A. Rolls
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
A. Turvey
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
Marie E. Coates
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
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 renewal of the intestinal mucosal epithelium has been investigated in germ-free and conventional chicks given a practical chick diet and a low- and high-fibre diet, using tritiated thymidine to label the nuclei of mucosal cells undergoing division.

2. Villus height, crypt depth and number of mitoses in the crypt were generally, although not always significantly, greater for conventional chicks than for germ-free chicks at all sites investigated in the intestine, and all became progressively lower from the upper intestine to the lower intestine.

3. There was a linear relationship between the height of the radioactively labelled mucosal cells on the villus and the period after injection, and the rates of epithelial cell migration were higher for conventional than for germ-free chicks, the relative differences being greater in the lower intestine than the upper intestine.

4. The inclusion of wheat bran as a source of dietary fibre had no effect on the rate of epithelial renewal, either in germ-free or conventional birds.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , January 1978 , pp. 91 - 98
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1978

References

Abrams, G. D., Bauer, H. & Sprinz, H. (1963). Lab. Invest. 12, 355.Google Scholar
Cook, R. H. & Bird, F. H. (1973). Poult. Sci. 52, 2276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eastwood, M. A. & Hamilton, D. (1968). Biochim. biophys. Acta 152, 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, R. (1968). In The Germ-free Animal in Research, p. 37 [Coates, M. E. editor]. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gustafsson, B. E. (1959). Annls N.Y. Acad. Sci. 78, 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, G. F. (1969). Lab. Anim. 3, 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leblond, C. P. & Messier, B. (1958). Anat. Rec. 132, 247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meslin, J.-C., Saquet, E. & Guenet, J. L. (1973). Annls Biol. anim. Biochim. Biophys. 13, 203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meslin, J.-C., Saquet, E. & Raibaud, P. (1974). Annls Biol. anim. Biochim. Biophys. 14, 709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moon, H. W. & Joel, D. D. (1975). Am. J. vet. Res. 36, 187.Google Scholar
Ranken, R., Wilson, R. & Bealmear, P. M. (1971). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. Med. 138, 270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, A. W. (1969). In Techniques of Autoradiography, p. 269. London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Sprinz, H. (1962). Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. Biol. 21, 57.Google Scholar