Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-6jg5l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-13T02:57:11.646Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Twelve generations of marginal protein deficiency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2008

R. J. C. Stewart ,
R. F. Preece  and
Hilda G. Sheppard
R. J. C. Stewart
Affiliation:
Department of Human Nutrition, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT
R. F. Preece
Affiliation:
Department of Human Nutrition, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT
Hilda G. Sheppard
Affiliation:
Department of Human Nutrition, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT
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. Colonies of rats have been maintained for twelve generations on diets adequate (dietary-protein energy:total metabolizable energy (NDp:E) 0·I) or marginally deficient in protein (NDp:E 0·068)

2. In the malnourished colony, the proportion of ‘small-for-gestational-age’ offspring was ten times as high as amongst the well-nourished colony, growth was slow, sexual maturation delayed, especially in the females, and, when adult, both sexes were significantly lighter and shorter than adults of the well-nourished colony. Organs, other than the eye, weighed less than those of well-nourished ‘age’ controls, but when expressed relative to body-weight, the brain, pituitary, thyroid, adrenals, testes, thymus and eyes were larger, the pancreas unchanged and the kidneys smaller than those of the well-nourished ‘age’ controls. The relative weight of the liver showed little change, being slightly increased in the males and, like the ovaries, slightly reduced in the females. On a body-weight basis, the brains were about 50% heavier than normal, but in absolute terms were 5–5·5% lighter than those of the well-nourished animals, the cerebellum (10·5% lighter in males and 12·9% lighter in females) being more severely affected than the cerebrum (4% lighter)

3. The young malnourished rats showed increased exploratory activity, transient head tremors and an increased sensitivity to noise, the latter being long-lasting if not permanent. When adult, they showed marked differences in behaviour and learning patterns and it was difficult to attract and hold their attention. In situations demanding a choice the animals were very excited, emitted loud squeals and tried to escape from what was clearly a stressful situation. However, a casual examination of the malnourished adults revealed a rather small, badly groomed, excitable rat without gross abnormalities

4. The findings are discussed in relation to changes found in malnourished human communities.

Information

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , March 1975 , pp. 233 - 253
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1975

References

Agrawal, S. P. & Katiyar, G. P. (1972). Pediat. Clins India 7, 203.Google Scholar
Antonov, A. N. (1947). J. Pediat. 30, 250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandran, K. & Ambegaokar, S. D. (1959). Indian J. med. Res. 47, 539.Google Scholar
Chow, B. F. & Lee, C.-J. (1964). J. Nutr. 82, 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cragg, B. G. (1972). Brain 95, 143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobbing, J. (1974). In Scientific Foundations of Paediatrics p. 565 [Davis, J. A and Dobbing, J., editors]. London: Heinemann Medical Books.Google Scholar
Dobbing, J. & Sands, J. (1973). Archs Dis. Childh. 48, 757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drillien, C. M. (1964). The Growth and Development of the Prematurely Born Infant. Edinburgh, London: E & S Livingstone Ltd.Google Scholar
Drillien, C. M. (1969). Archs Dis. Childh. 4, 562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eayrs, J. T. & Horn, G. (1955). Anat. Rec. 121, 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzhardinge, P. M. & Steven, E. M. (1972). Pediatrics, Springfield 50, 50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisch, R. E. (1972). Pediatrics, Springfield 50, 445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gopalan, C. & Naidu, A. N. (1972). Lancet ii, 1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, S. R. (1969). Indian J. med. Res. 57, 359.Google Scholar
Gupta, S. R. & Christie, B. (1968). Indian J. med. Res. 56, 114.Google Scholar
Heard, C. R. C. (1966). Diabetes 15, 78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heard, C. R. C. & Stewart, R. J. C. (1971). Hormones 2, 40.Google Scholar
Hertzig, M. E., Birch, H. G., Richardson, S. A. & Tizard, J. (1972). J. Pediat. 49, 814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, E. (1954). Archs Dis. Childh. 29, 256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, G. C. & Mitra, J. (1963). J. Physiol., Lond. 166, 408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lashley, K. S. (1938). J. gen. Psychol. 18, 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merat, A. & Dickerson, J. W. T. (1974). Biol. Neonat. 25, 158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milam, D. F. & Darby, W. J. (1945). Sth. med. J., Nashville 38, 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naismith, D. J. (1969). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 28, 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naismith, D. J. & Ritchie, C. (1973). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 32, 1A.Google Scholar
Payne, P. R. & Stewart, R. J. C. (1972). Lab. Anim. 6, 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platt, B. S., Miller, D. S. & Payne, P. R. (1961). In Recent Advances in Human Nutrition p. 351 [Brock, J. F, editor]. London: J. & A. Churchill.Google Scholar
Platt, B. S. & Stewart, R. J. C. (1968). Devl Med. Child Neurol. 10, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platt, B. S. & Stewart, R. J. C. (1969). Devl Med. Child Neurol. 11, 174.Google Scholar
Platt, B. S. & Stewart, R. J. C. (1971). Wld Rev. Nutr. Diet. 13, 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, S. A., Birch, H. G., Grabie, E. & Yoder, K. (1972). J. Hlth Soc. Behav. 13, 276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scrimshaw, N. S. (1964). In Mammalian Protein Metabolism Vol. 2, p. 569 [Munro, H. N and Allison, J. B, editors]. New York, London: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. A. (1947). J. Pediat. 30, 229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, R. J. C. (1965). Wld Rev. Nutr. Diet. 5, 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, R. J. C. (1972). Pan-Am. Hlth Orgn scient. Publs no. 251, 33.Google Scholar
Stewart, R. J. C. (1973). Nutr. Rep. Int. 7, 487.Google Scholar
Stewart, R. J. C., Merat, A. & Dickerson, J. W. T. (1974). Biol. Neonat. 25, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, R. J. C., Preece, R. F. & Sheppard, H. G. (1973 a). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 32, 102A.Google Scholar
Stewart, R. J. C., Preece, R. F. & Sheppard, H. G. (1973 b). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 32, 103A.Google Scholar
Stewart, R. J. C. & Sheppard, H. G. (1971). Br. J. Nutr. 25, 175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turkewitz, G. (1974). Proc. Kittay Foundation Symp. (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Udani, P. M. (1963). Indian J. Child Hlth 12, 593.Google Scholar
Waterlow, J. C. & Alleyne, G. A. O. (1971). In Advances in Protein Chemistry Vol. 25, p. 117 [Anfinsen, C. B, Edsell, J. T. and Richards, F. M, editors]. New York and London: Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar
Wayburne, S. (1968). In Calorie Deficiencies and Protein Deficiencies p. 7 [McCance, R. A and Widdowson, E. M., editors]. London: J. & A. Churchill.Google Scholar
Wiener, G. (1968). J. spec. Educ. 2, 237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar