Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:50:31.132Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of the effects of dietary calcium and phosphorus deficiency on the in vitro and in vivo metabolism of 25-hydroxycholecalciferol in the chick

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

Barbara A. Sommerville ,
R. Swaminathan  and
A. D. Care
Barbara A. Sommerville
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Physiology and Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT
R. Swaminathan
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Pathology, Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds 1
A. D. Care
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Physiology and Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT
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. Young chicks fed a diet deficient in calcium showed an eightfold increase in the in vitro renal production of 1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol (1,25-DHCC) and those fed a diet deficient in phosphorus showed a threefold increase when compared to chicks on a normal diet.

2. The in vivo accumulation of 1,25-DHCC in the gut mucosa was doubled in both low-Ca and low-P groups as was the rate of Ca absorption from the duodenum and the Ca-binding protein activity. The accumulation of 1,25-DHCC in bone increased threefold in the low-Ca group but showed no change in the low-P group.

3. It was concluded that the increased rate of Ca absorption found in dietary P deficiency depends rather upon the capacity of the gut mucosa to accumulate larger amounts of 1,25-DHCC than upon an increased renal production of this metabolite. The mechanism by which this is achieved is unknown, but it unlikely to be a general increase in availability of 1,25-DHCC since no rise occurred in bone 1,25-DHCC levels.

Type
Short Papers
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , March 1978 , pp. 411 - 414
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1978

References

REFERENCES

Bar, A., Hurwitz, S. & Edelstein, S. (1975). Biochim. biophys. Acta 411, 106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bar, A. & Wasserman, R. H. (1973). Biochem. biophys. Res. Commun. 54, 191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, L. A. & DeLuca, H. F. (1976). J. biol. Chem. 251, 3158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelstein, S., Harell, A., Bar, A. & Hurwitz, S. (1975). Biochim. biophys. Acta 385, 483.Google Scholar
Friedlander, E. J., Henry, H. L. & Norman, A. W. (1977). Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs exp. Biol. 36, 1096.Google Scholar
Gitelman, H. J. (1967). Analyt. Biochem. 18, 521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, H. L., Midgett, R. J. & Norman, A. W. (1974). J. biol. Chem. 249, 7584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montecuccoli, G., Bar, A., Risenfeld, G. & Hurwitz, S. (1977). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 57A, 331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrissey, R. L. & Wasserman, R. H. (1971). Am. J. Physiol. 220, 1509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omdahl, J. L., Gray, R. W., Boyle, I. T., Knutson, J. & DeLuca, H. F. (1972). Nature, New Biol. 237, 63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ribovich, M. L. & DeLuca, H. F. (1975). Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 170, 529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swaminathan, R. & Care, A. D. (1975). Calcif. Tiss. Res. 17, 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swaminathan, R., Sommerville, B. A. & Care, A. D. (1977 a). Br. J. Nutr. 38, 47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swaminathan, R., Sommerville, B. A. & Care, A. D. (1977 b). Clin. Sci Mol. Med. (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Tanaka, Y., Frank, H. & DeLuca, H. F. (1973). Science, N. Y. 181, 564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Technicon Instruments Co. Ltd (1966). Technicon Methodology Sheet, N-4B. Basingstoke, Hants: Technicon Instruments Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
Wasserman, R. H., Corradino, R. A. & Taylor, A. N. (1968). J. biol. Chem. 243, 3978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar