Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T00:47:07.221Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The relationship between nutritive value of dietary protein and activity of liver arginase and kidney transamidinase enzymes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

E. A. Kean
E. A. Kean
Affiliation:
Department of Biochemistry, University of the West Indies, Kingston, Jamaica
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 protein efficiency ratio of three protein sources was determined with rats by a depletion-repletion method. The sources were: a groundnut product, a methionine-supplemented groundnut product and lactalbumin.

2. Livers obtained from the test animals were assayed for arginase activity, and kidneys for transamidinase activity (glycine amidinotransferase).

3. The measurements indicated that there was an inverse relationship between arginase activity and the nutritive value of the dietary protein.

4. Transamidinase activity was also influenced by nutritive value. Only the unsupplemented groundnut product, which had the lowest nutritive value, failed to produce a significant increase of transamidinase activity over basal levels.

5. The findings are discussed from the standpoint of physiological function and needs. It is suggested that observed levels of arginase activity are not necessarily related to amounts of urea excreted; similarly, transamidinase activity may be well in excess of physiological requirements.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , February 1967 , pp. 29 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1967

References

Archibald, R. M. (1945). J. biol. Chem. 157, 507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashida, K. & Harper, A. E. (1961). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. Med. 107, 151.Google Scholar
Block, R. J. & Bolling, D. (1951). The Amino Acid Composition of Proteins and Foods, 2nd ed. Springfield, Illinois: Thomas.Google Scholar
Block, R. J. & Mitchell, H. H. (1946–1947). Nutr. Abstr. Rev. 16, 249.Google Scholar
Borchers, R. (1964). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. Med. 115, 893.Google Scholar
Borsook, H. & Dubnoff, J. W. (1940). Science, N. Y. 91, 551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borsook, H. & Dubnoff, J. W. (1941). J. biol. Chem. 138, 389.Google Scholar
Brown, G. W. Jr & Cohen, P. P. (1959). J. biol. Chem. 234, 1769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedland, R. A. & Sodikoff, C. H. (1962). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. Med. 109, 394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frost, D. V. & Sandy, H. R. (1949). J. Nutr. 39, 427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuld, M. (1954). Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. Biol. 13, 215.Google Scholar
Gornall, A. G., Bardawill, C. J. & David, M. M. (1949). J. biol. Chem. 177, 751.Google Scholar
Hawk, P. B., Oser, B. L. & Summerson, W. H. (1951). Practical Physiological Chemistry, 12th ed. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Kean, E. A. (1966). J. Nutr. 90, 91.Google Scholar
Kiriyama, S. & Ashida, K. (1964). J. Nutr. 82, 127.Google Scholar
Krebs, H. A. (1952). In The Enzymes. Vol. 2, part 2, p. 866. [Sumner, J. B. and Myrback, K., editors.] New York: Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar
McLean, P. (1961). Nature, Lond. 191, 1302.Google Scholar
Mandelstam, J. & Yudkin, J. (1952). Biochem. J. 51, 681.Google Scholar
Ratner, S. & Rochovansky, O. (1956). Archs Biochem. 63, 277.Google Scholar
Rippon, W. P. (1959). Br. J. Nutr. 13, 243.Google Scholar
Schimke, R. T. (1962a). J. biol. Chem. 237, 459.Google Scholar
Schimke, R. T. (1962b). J. biol. Chem. 237, 1921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schimke, R. T. (1963). J. biol. Chem. 238, 1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Pilsum, J. F. (1957). J. biol. Chem. 228, 145.Google Scholar
Van Pilsum, J. F., Berman, D. A. & Wolin, E. A. (1957). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. Med. 95, 96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Slyke, D. D. & Archibald, R. M. (1946). J. biol. Chem. 165, 293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar