Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:33:15.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Critical evaluation of a method for estimating amino acid requirements for maintenance in the rat by measurement of the rate of 14C-labelled amino acid oxidation in vivo

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

R. J Neale  and
J. C Waterlow
R. J Neale
Affiliation:
Department of Human Nutrition, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WCI E 7HT
J. C Waterlow
Affiliation:
Department of Human Nutrition, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WCI E 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. The object of the experiments was to estimate the maintenance requirements for lysine and leucine by a radioactive method. Rats were given a single dose of 14C-labelled lysine or leucine and groups of animals were killed after 15, 20 and 30 d.

2. After 20 d the specific radioactivity (SR) of protein was approximately the same in liver, muscle and viscera; it was somewhat lower in skin. Once uniform SR is achieved, the rate of loss of radioactivity is a measure of the rate of endogenous loss of the amino acid.

3. The rate of loss between 20 and 30 d was measured in two ways: from the daily output of expired 14CO2, and from the decrease, over the 10 d interval, of the total amount of radioactivity retained in the body.

4. For the first 15 d after administration of the labelled amino acid, all rats were given a low-protein or low-amino acid diet on which body-weight was maintained constant. For the second 15 d period some rats were kept on this diet; others were transferred either to a protein-free diet or to a diet lacking the specific amino acid (lysine or leucine) which had been administered in the labelled form.

5. The fractional rate of amino acid loss in the different experiments ranged from 1.5 to 3.5%/d, being greatest with the protein-free diet. The absolute rates of loss were calculated from measurements of the total lysine and leucine content of rats.

6. The best estimates of the rate of endogenous amino acid loss obtained in this way, expressed as mg/kg0.75 per d were: lysine 136, leucine 80. These estimates are higher than most estimates of maintenance requirements obtained by growth or nitrogen balance methods and possible reasons for these discrepancies are discussed.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , September 1974 , pp. 257 - 272
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1974

References

REFERENCES

Bender, A. E. (1961). Meeting Protein Needs. Washington, DC: National Academy of Science-National Research Council.Google Scholar
Brookes, I. M., Owens, F. N. & Garrigus, U. S. (1972). J. Nutr. 102, 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO/WHO (1973). Tech. Rep. Ser. Wld Hlth Org. No. 522.Google Scholar
Garlick, P., Millward, D. J. & Waterlow, J. C. (1974). Physiol. Rev. (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Krebs, H. A. (1964). In Mammalian Protein Metabolism Vol. I, p. 125 [Munro, H. N. and Allison, J. B. editors] New York and London: Academic PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFarlane, I. G. & von Holt, C. (1969). Biochem. J. III, 557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, L. L. (1962). In Amino Acid Pools p. 708 [Holden, J. T., editor]. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Mitchell, H. H. (1959). In Protein and Amino Acid Nutrition p. 24 [Albanese, A. A., editor]. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Moore, S. & Stein, W. H. (1948). J. biol. Chem. 176, 367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, H. N. (editor) (1970). In Mammalian Protein Metabolism Vol. 4, p. 302. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Neale, R. J. (1971). Nature New Biol. 231, 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neale, R. J. (1972). Biochim. biophys. Acta 273, 80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neale, R. J. & Waterlow, J. C. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 32, 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuberger, A. & Webster, T. A. (1945). Biochem. J. 39, 200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odyssey, R. & Goldberg, A. L. (1972). Am. J. Physiol. 223, 1376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, P. R. & Stewart, R. J. C. (1972). Lab. Anim. 6, 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, P. B. R., Metta, V. C. & Johnson, B. C. (1959). J. Nutr. 69, 387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Said, A. K. & Hegsted, D. M. (1970). J. Nutr. 100, 1363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sketcher, R. D., Fern, E. B. & James, W. P. T. (1974). Br. J. Nutr. 31, 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, E. B. & Johnson, B. C. (1967). Br. J. Nutr. 21, 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soliman, A. & Harper, A. E. (1971). Biochim. biophys. Acta 24, 146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockland, W. L., Meade, R. J. & Melliere, A. L. (1970). J. Nutr. 100, 925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, S.-H. & Nesheim, M. C. (1972). J. Nutr. 102, 583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, S.-H., Crosby, L. O. & Nesheim, M. C. (1973). J. Nutr. 103, 384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waterlow, J. C. & Stephen, J. M. L. (1966). Br. J. Nutr. 20, 461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waterlow, J. C. & Stephen, J. M. L. (1967). Clin. Sci. 33, 489.Google Scholar
Yamashita, K. & Ashida, K. (1969). J. Nutr. 99, 267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, R. A. & Scott, H. M. (1965). J. Nutr. 87, 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar