Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:15:09.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changes in the activity of skeletal muscle calcium-activated neutral proteinase (EC 3. 4. 22. 17) and its specific inhibitor in chickens grown at different rates in response to graded levels of dietary protein

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

R. Ballard ,
R. G. Bardsley  and
P. J. Buttery
R. Ballard
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Biochemistry and Food Science, University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leics. LE12 5RD
R. G. Bardsley
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Biochemistry and Food Science, University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leics. LE12 5RD
P. J. Buttery
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Biochemistry and Food Science, University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leics. LE12 5RD
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. Two experiments are reported in which the effect of alteration in growth rate on the levels of avian skeletal muscle calcium-activated neutral proteinase (EC 3.4.22. 17) (CANP or calpain) and its specific inhibitor (calpastatin), a system thought to be implicated in myofibrillar catabolism, was studied by means of manipulation of dietary protein concentration.

2. In Expt 1 broiler chicks were given free access to diets containing 105, 149, 197 and 212 g protein/kg for 20 d. In Expt 2 the four dietary treatments were 119, 141, 182 and 227 g protein/kg diet given for 16 d. Chick growth rate and total leg skeletal muscle weight significantly increased (P < 0·001) with increasing dietary protein concentration in both experiments. Total skeletal muscle protein increased with the level of dietary protein, the effect being significant (P < 0·01 and P < 0·001 in Expts 1 and 2 respectively).

3. Minced leg muscle was homogenized in low-salt buffers, and the extract chromatographed on DEAE-cellulose to separate proteinase and inhibitor activity. The partially purified CANP enzyme and inhibitor proteins were present at a concentration broadly consistent with literature reports, and their elution characteristics and Ca2+ concentration dependence were not varied by dietary protein concentration.

4. Both the muscle CANP and CANP inhibitor activities (units/kg muscle) exhibited upward trends with growth rate and increased muscle weight. However, these differences were not statistically significant (P > 0·05) and were not present at all when the results were expressed as units/g muscle protein.

Type
General Nutrition papers
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 59 , Issue 1 , January 1988 , pp. 141 - 147
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1988

References

Association of Official Analytical Chemists (1980). Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Washington, DC: Association of Official Analytical Chemists.Google Scholar
Boldizsár, H. K., Boorman, K. N. & Buttery, P. J. (1973). British Journal of Nutrition 30, 501–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, B. A., Goll, D. E., Peng, U-S., Greweling, J. A. & Hennecke, G. (1983). Journal of Nutrition 113, 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryan, L., Buttery, P. J. & Fisher, C. (1985). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 44, 76A.Google Scholar
Buttery, P. J. & Sinnett-Smith, P. A. (1984). In Manipulation of Growth in Farm Animals, pp. 211–232 [Roche, J. and O'Callaghan, D., editors]. Boston: Martinus-Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayton, W. R., Goll, D. E., Stromer, M. Y. H., Reville, W. J., Zeece, M. G. & Robson, R. M. (1975). In Cold Spring Harbor Conference on Cell Proliferation. Proteases and Biological Control, pp. 551–577 [Reich, E., Rifkin, D. B. and Shaw, E., editors] Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.Google Scholar
Dayton, W. R. & Schollmeyer, J. V. (1981). Experimental Cell Research 136, 423–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayton, W. R., Schollmeyer, J. V., Chan, A. C. & Allen, C. E. (1979). Biochimica Biophysica Acta 58, 216–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, K., Tomita, Y., Maeda, Y., Shinagawa, Y., Inoue, K. & Hashizume, T. (1985). British Journal of Nutrition 54, 157–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imajoh, S., Kawasaki, H. & Suzuki, K. (1986). Journal of Biochemistry 99, 1281–1284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inomata, M., Hayashi, M., Nakamura, M., Imahori, K. & Kawashima, S. (1983). Journal of Biochemistry 93, 291–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishiura, S., Murofushi, H., Suzuki, K. & Imahori, K. (1978). Journal of Biochemistry 84, 225–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishiura, S., Tsuji, S., Murofushi, H. & Suzuki, K. (1982). Biochimica Biophysica Acta 701, 216–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kar, N. C. & Pearson, C. M. (1976). Clinica Chimica Acta 73, 293–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kawashima, S., Nomoto, M., Hayashi, M., Inomata, M., Nakamura, M. & Imahori, K. (1984). Journal of Biochemistry 95, 95–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepley, R. A. (1983). Purification of a high molecular weight inhibitor of calcium activated neutral protease from porcine skeletal muscle. PhD Thesis, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Lepley, R. A., Pampusch, M. & Dayton, W. R. (1985). Biochimica Biophysica Acta 828, 95–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, M., Amin, R., Milholland, R. J. & Rosen, F. O. (1976). Experimental and Molecular Pathology 25, 9–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mejbaum-Katzenellenbosen, S. & Dobryszycka, M. (1959). Clinica Chimica Acta 4, 515–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millward, D. J. (1985). Biochemical Society Transactions 13, 1023–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millward, D. J., Garlick, P. J., Nnanyelugo, D. O. & Waterlow, J. C. (1976). Biochemical Journal 156, 185–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murachi, T. (1983). In Calcium and Cell Function, vol. 4, pp. 377–410 [Cheung, W. Y., editor]. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Murachi, T., Tanaka, K., Hatanaka, M. & Murakami, T. (1981). Advances in Enzyme Regulation 19, 407–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murayama, A., Fukai, F. & Murachi, T. (1984). Journal of Biochemistry 95, 1697–1704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishizawa, N. P., Noguchi, D. J., Hareyama, S. & Funabiki, R. (1977). British Journal of Nutrition 38, 149–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pemrick, S. M. (1981). Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 102, 877–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunderson, C. L. & Bryan, L. (1985). Biochemical Society Transactions 13, 342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunderson, C. L. & Leslie, S. (1983). British Journal of Nutrition 50, 691–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, K. & Ishiura, S. (1983). Journal of Biochemistry 93, 1463–1471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, L. C. & Buttery, P. J. (1979). Biochimica Biophysica Acta 587, 415–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waterlow, J. C. & Stephen, J. M. L. (1968). Clinical Science 35, 287–305.Google Scholar
Young, V. R., Alexis, S. D., Baliga, B. S. & Munro, H. N. (1972). Journal of Biological Chemistry 247, 3592–3600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar