Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T11:39:07.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The response of hind-limb muscles of the weanling rat to undernutrition and subsequent rehabilitation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2008

J. W. T. Dickerson  and
P. A. McAnulty
J. W. T. Dickerson
Affiliation:
Department of Biochemistry, University Surrey, Guildford, Surrey
P. A. McAnulty
Affiliation:
Department of Growth and Development, Institute of Child Health, London WC1 1EH
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. Weanling male rats were maintained at constant body-weight for 28 d by feeding them reduced amounts of their normal diet. They were rehabilitated for 0, 3, 7, 10 or 16 d, and compared with two sets of control groups, one set of the same body-weight and the other of the same age

2. The quadriceps, gastrocnemius and anterior tibialis muscles from the left hind-limb were weighed, and DNA, RNA, extracellular protein and intracellular protein estimated in the quadriceps and gastrocnemius muscles

3. Each muscle responded differently during undernutrition and rehabilitation if compared with ‘age controls’, but if compared with ‘body-weight controls’ there was a tendency for muscle weight to remain appropriate for body-weight

4. The amount of DNA did not change in the gastrocnemius or quadriceps muscles during undernutrition, and on rehabilitation did not begin to increase until after 7 d. RNA decreased during undernutrition, but increased rapidly on rehabilitation. The rate of increase in RNA was greatest in the quadriceps during the first 3 d, but in the gastrocnemius was greatest between 3 and 7 d. The peak values for the rate of RNA increase corresponded with the initiation of intracellular protein accretion in each muscle. Extracellular protein increased during undernutrition, and on rehabilitation, responded in the same way as DNA, that is, it increased only after 7 d

5. It is concluded that the differences found between muscles of the hind-limb during rehabilitation are due mainly to differences in the rates of DNA and intracellular protein accretion. It is suggested that these differences are the result of a differential response of RNA to rehabilitation.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , March 1975 , pp. 171 - 180
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1975

References

Babinski, M. J. & Onanoff, M. (1888). C. r. Séanc. Soc. Biol. 5, 145.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. & Johnson, E. R. (1971). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 76, 457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheek, D. B., Brasel, J. A. & Graystone, J. E. (1968). In Human Growth p. 306 [Cheek, D. B, editor]. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.Google Scholar
Cheek, D. B. & Hill, D. E. (1970). Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. Biol. 29, 1503.Google Scholar
Cheek, D. B., Hill, D. E., Cordano, A. & Graham, G. G. (1970). Pediat. Res. 4, 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheek, D. B., Powell, G. K. & Scott, R. E. (1965). Johns Hopkins Hosp. Bull. 117, 306.Google Scholar
Dickerson, J. W. T. (1960). Biochem. J. 75, 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickerson, J. W. T., Hughes, P. C. R. & McAnulty, P. A. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 27, 527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickerson, J. W. T. & McCance, R. A. (1960). Br. J. Nutr. 14, 331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elsley, F. W. H., McDonald, I. & Fowler, V. R. (1964). Anim. Prod. 6, 141.Google Scholar
Enesco, M. & Puddy, D. (1964). Am. J. Anat. 114, 235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graystone, J. E. & Cheek, D. B. (1969). Pediat. Res. 3, 66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. (1932). Growth and Development of Mutton Qualities in the Sheep. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Hill, D. E., Holt, A. B., Parra, A. & Cheek, D. B. (1970). Johns Hopkins Hosp. Bull. 127, 146.Google Scholar
Howarth, R. E. & Baldwin, R. L. (1971). J. Nutr. 101, 477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, P. C. R. & Tanner, J. M. (1970). J. Anat. 106, 349.Google Scholar
Lowry, O. H., Rosebrough, N. J., Farr, A. L. & Randall, R. J. (1951). J. biol. Chem. 193, 265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAnulty, P. A. & Dickerson, J. W. T. (1973). Pediat. Res. 7, 778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAnulty, P. A. & Dickerson, J. W. T. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 32, 301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manchester, K. L. (1972). Diabetes 21, Suppl. 2, 447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendes, C. B. & Waterlow, J. C. (1958). Br. J. Nutr. 12, 74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, R. D. (1962). J. clin. Path. 15, 511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, R. D., Dickerson, J. W. T. & McCance, R. A. (1964). Br. J. Nutr. 18, 587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, F. P. & Leblond, C. P. (1971). Anat. Rec. 170, 421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, D. S. (1952). Biochem. J. 52, 621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanner, J. M. (1962). Growth at Adolescence 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vézinhet, A., Rouvier, R., Dulor, J.-P. & Cantier, J. (1972). Annls Biol. anim. Biochim. Biophys. 12, 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, L. R. (1948). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 38, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winick, M. & Noble, A. (1966). J. Nutr. 89, 300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar