Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T01:21:05.902Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of guar gum on glucose and water absorption from isolated loops of jejunum in conscious growing pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Anna L. Rainbird ,
A. G. Low  and
Teresa Zebrowska
Anna L. Rainbird
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading, Berks RG2 9AT
A. G. Low
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading, Berks RG2 9AT
Teresa Zebrowska
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading, Berks RG2 9AT
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. Four pigs initially of 30 kg live weight were surgically prepared with two re-entrant cannulas in the jejunum 1.0 m apart which allowed an isolated loop to be formed through which solutions were perfused. 51Cr-EDTA was used as a marker for measuring net secretion or absorption.

2. A new Ringer solution was made, the ionic content of which resembled more closely that found in the jejunum of pigs given similar diets, than Krebs-Ringer solution.

3. The absorption of glucose and water from Krebs-Ringer and new Ringer solutions was compared.

4. The effect of guar gum on the absorption of glucose and water from solutions of glucose and maltose was studied.

5. There was a trend (not significant) for greater absorption of glucose and water from the new Ringer solution than from the Κ rebs-Ringer solution.

6. Guar gum significantly reduced the net absorption of glucose from glucose or maltose solutions from 74.2 to 41.4% (P < 0.001) and 71.1 to 35.0% (P < 0.001) respectively.

7. Guar gum significantly reduced the net absorption of water from the glucose solution from 42.7 to 8.3% (P < 0.01) and from the maltose solution from 49.2 to 5.1% (P < 0.001).

8. The lack of differences between the absorption of glucose from solutions of glucose or maltose suggested that maltase (EC 3.2.1.20) activity was not inhibited to the extent that this limited the rate of glucose absorption.

Type
Papers of direct relevance to Clinical and Human Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , November 1984 , pp. 489 - 498
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1984

References

REFERENCES

Blackburn, N. A. & Johnson, I. M. (1981). British Journal of Nutrition 46, 239–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackburn, N. A., Redfern, H., Jarjis, A. M., Holgate, A. M., Hanning, I., Scarpello, J. H. B., Johnson, I. T. & Read, N. W. (1984). Clinical Science 66, 329–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno, L. & Ruckebusch, M. (1976). American Journal of Physiology 230, 1538–1544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elsenhans, B., Süfke, U., Blume, R. & Caspary, W. F. (1980). Clinical Science 59, 373–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elsenhans, B., Süfke, U., Blume, R. & Caspary, W. F. (1981). Digestion 21, 98–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Förster, H. & Hoos, I. (1977). Zeitschrft für Ernährungswissenschaft 16, 140–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furuya, S. & Takahashi, S. (1975). British Journal of Nutrition 34, 267–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horszczaruk, F., Buraczewska, L. & Buraczewski, S. (1974). Roczniki nauk Rolniczych 95 B4, 69–77.Google Scholar
Jenkins, D. J. A., Leeds, A. R., Gassull, M. A., Cochet, B. & Alberti, K. G. M. M. (1977). Annals of Internal Medicine 86, 20–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, D. J. A., Leeds, A. R., Gassull, M. A., Wolever, T. M. S., Goff, D. V., Alberti, K. G. M. M. & Hockaday, T. D. R. (1976). Lancet ii, 172–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, I. M. & Gee, J. M. (1981). Gut 22, 398–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, P., MacRae, R. & Robinson, R. K. (1979). Laboratory Practice 28, 260.Google Scholar
Laplace, J.-P. (1980). In Current Concepts of Digestion and Absorption in Pigs, pp. 24–47 [Low, A. G. and Partridge, I. G., editors]. Reading: National Institute for Research in Dairying.Google Scholar
Leeds, A. R., Kang, S. S., Low, A. G. & Sambrook, I. E. (1980). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 39, 44A.Google Scholar
Low, A. G., Rainbird, A. L. & Gurr, M. I. (1982). Journal of Plant Foods 4, 29–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markowitz, J., Archibald, J. & Downie, H. G. (1954). Experimental Surgery, 3rd ed. London: Bailliére Tindall & cox.Google Scholar
Sarr, M. G., Kelly, K. A. & Phillips, S. F. (1981). Digestive Diseases and Sciences 26, 961–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephen, A. M. & Cummings, J. H. (1979). Gut 20, 722–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, R. H., Wolever, T. M. S., Jenkins, D. J. A., Ghafari, H. & Jenkins, M. J. A. (1980). Gut 21, A452.Google Scholar