Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T04:27:12.286Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparative study of the absorption of calcium and the availability of phytate-phosphorus in the golden hamster (Mesocricetus auratus) and the laboratory rat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

T. G. Taylor  and
J. W. Coleman
T. G. Taylor
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition, School of Biochemical and Physiological Sciences, University of Southampton, SouthamptonS09 5NH
J. W. Coleman
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition, School of Biochemical and Physiological Sciences, University of Southampton, SouthamptonS09 5NH
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. Balance studies were carried out with rats and golden hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus) given diets high and low in calcium (10.8 and 5.1–5.2 g Ca/kg respectively) and high and low in phytate (3.4 and 1.6 g phytate-phosphorus/kg respectively) in a 2 × 2 factorial experiment.

2. Values for Ca absorption and phytate availability (relative to the amount ingested) and for urinary excretion of Ca and P were significantly higher in the hamster than in the rat for all four diets.

3. Phytate availability was significantly greater on the low-Ca than on the high-Ca diets with both species.

4. Ca absorption was greater on the low-phytate than on the high-phytate diets but the differences were significant only for the hamster.

5. Absorption of both Ca and P was poorly controlled in the hamster compared to the rat.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , July 1979 , pp. 113 - 119
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1979

References

Davies, N. T. & Flett, A. A. (1978). Br. J. Nutr. 39, 307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, C. H. & Subbarow, Y. (1925). J. biol. Chem. 66, 375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krieger, C. H. & Steenbock, H. (1940). J. Nutr. 20, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellanby, E. (1950). A Story of Nutritional Research. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
Oshima, M., Taylor, T. G. & Williams, A. (1964). Biochem J. 92, 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pileggi, V. J. (1959). Arch Biochem. Biophys. 80, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pileggi, V. J., De Luca, H. F. & Steenbock, H. (1955). Arch Biochem. Biophys. 58, 194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shirley, E. K. & Schmidt-Nielsen, K. (1967). J. Nutr. 91, 496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, T. G. (1965). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 24, 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar