Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T16:02:21.917Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Changes in skeletal muscle cellularity in starved and refed young rats*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

P. V. J. Hegarty
Affiliation:
Department of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Minnesota, St Paul, Minnesota 55108, USA
K. O. Kim
Affiliation:
Department of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Minnesota, St Paul, Minnesota 55108, USA
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. All food was withdrawn from male weanling rats until a 40% loss of body-weight was attained. Another group of animals was treated similarly and then refed a stock diet until the original body-weight was attained.

2. The body-weight loss caused a significant reduction in the weight of the heart, kidney, liver and epididymal fat pads. Refeeding produced a return to the control weight of the heart and kidney, an increase in the weight of the liver and a deficit in the weight of the epididymal fat pads.

3. Body-weight loss caused a decrease in the weight of the three different muscles studied, and in the number and diameter of the fibres in each muscle. Refeeding restored the weight and cellularity of two of the three muscles to that of the control animals. The soleus muscle was heavier in the refed animals when compared to controls due to an increased fibre diameter.

4. It is concluded that the decrease in the number and diameter of muscle fibres during starvation in the rat can be restored on refeeding a stock diet.

Type
Papers os direct relevance to Clinical and Human Nutrition
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1980

References

REFERENCES

Alleyne, G. A. O., Hay, R. W., Picou, D. I., Stanfield, J. P. & Whitehead, R. G. (1977). Protein-Energy Malnutrition. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Chan, A. C. & Hegarty, P. V. J. (1977). Br. J. Nutr. 38, 361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheek, D. B., Hill, D. E., Cordano, A. & Graham, G. G. (1970). Pediat. Res. 4, 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickerson, J. W. T. & McAnulty, P. A. (1975). Br. J. Nutr. 33, 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldspink, D. (1977). J. Physiol., Lond. 264, 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldspink, G. (1965). Am. J. Physiol. 209, 100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen-Smith, F. M., Picou, D. & Golden, M. H. (1979). Br. J. Nutr. 41, 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, D. E., Holt, A. B., Parra, A. & Cheek, D. B. (1970). Johns Hopkins Med. J. 127, 146.Google Scholar
Kim, K. O. & Hegarty, P. V. J. (1978). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 37, 114A.Google Scholar
Krishnamurthy, D. I., Kanan, S., Krishnamurthi, D. & Chandra, H. (1971). Indian Pediat. 8, 814.Google Scholar
Lancet, (1978). Lancet i, 646.Google Scholar
Layman, D. K. (1978). Biochemical and morphological changes in skeletal muscle fibers during normal growth and prolonged starvation. PhD Thesis, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Layman, D. K., Hegarty, P. V. J. & Swan, P. B. (1980). J. Anat. 130, 159.Google Scholar
Levine, A. S. & Hegarty, P. V. J. (1977). J. Anat. 123, 313.Google Scholar
McCarter, R., Yu, B. P. & Radicke, D. (1978). Nutr. Rep. int. 17, 339.Google Scholar
Miller, D. S. & Wise, A. (1976). Nutr. Metab. 20, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, R. D. (1962). J. clin. Path. 15, 511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowe, R. W. D. (1968). J. Exp. Zool. 167, 353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sands, J.. Dobbing, J. & Grauk, C. (1979). Lancet ii, 503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stickland, N. C., Widdowson, E. M. & Goldspink, G. (1975). Br J. Nutr. 34, 421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, E., Levine, A. S., Hegarty, P. V. J. & Allen, C. E. (1979). J. Anim. Sci. 4, 328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tulp, O., Gambert, S. & Horton, E. S. (1979). J. Lipid Res. 20, 47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widdowson, E. M. (1976). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 35, 357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar