Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T13:48:43.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The uptake of nutrients from the small intestine of gnotobiotic and conventional chicks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

H. Yokota  and
Marie E. Coates
H. Yokota
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. Uptake of L-[2(n)-3H]methionine and 3-O-methyl[14C]-D-glucose (3MG) from jejunal loops in vivo was investigated in germ-free (GF), gnotobiotic (GN) and conventional (CV) chicks aged between 2 and 4 weeks.

2. Body-weight gain was less, and intestine weight per unit length greater, in CV and GN birds than in corresponding GF birds.

3. Uptake of both nutrients was less in CV and GN birds when calculated per g intestinal tissue, but no difference was found between any of the groups when uptake was expressed per unit length of intestine.

4. Concentration of methionine in mesenteric and cardiac blood was higher, and amounts in the intestinal wall lower, in CV chicks than in corresponding samples from GF birds.

5. Concentration of 3MG in mesenteric blood was similar in both environments but it was higher in cardiac blood and lower in the gut wall of CV birds.

6. It was concluded that uptake of methionine and glucose is not impaired by the presence of micro-organisms in the gut.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , March 1982 , pp. 349 - 356
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1982

References

Coates, M. E. (1980). In Growth in Animals, p. 175 [Lawrence, T. L. J., editor]. London–Boston: Butterworths.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coates, M. E. & Jayne-Williams, D. J. (1966). In Physiology of the Domestic Fowl, p. 182 [Horton-Smith, C. and Amoroso, E. C., editors]. Edinburgh and London: Oliver & Boyd Ltd.Google Scholar
Csonka, F. A. & Denton, C. A. (1946). J. biol. Chem. 163, 329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, D. J. & Coates, M. E. (1971). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 30, 10A.Google Scholar
Frizzell, R. A. & Schultz, S. G. (1970). Biochim. biophys. Acta 211, 589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, R., Coates, M. E. & Harrison, G. F. (1979). J. appl. Bact. 46, 335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, H. A. & Bruckner-Kardoss, E. (1961). Acta anat. 4, 210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustafsson, B. E. (1959). Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 78, 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajjar, J. J., Khuri, R. N. & Bikhazi, A. B. (1975). Am. J. Physiol. 229, 518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, G. F. & Coates, M. E. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 28, 213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muramatsu, T., Coates, M. E., Hewitt, D., Salter, D. N. & Garlick, P. J. (1981). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 40, 15A.Google Scholar
Pope, J. L., Parkinson, T. M. & Olson, J. A. (1966). Biochim. biophys. Acta 130, 218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. H. (1958). Nature, Lond. 182, 260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tasaki, I. & Takahashi, N. (1964). J. Nutr. 88, 359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teem, M. V. & Phillips, S. F. (1972). Gastroenterology 62, 261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yokota, H. & Tasaki, I. (1970). Jap. J. Zootech, Sci. 41, 209.Google Scholar