Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:56:50.738Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of litter size on placental blood flow and placental calcium transfer in the multifoetate guinea-pig

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

H. W. Symonds ,
R. H. Bubar ,
W. CRACKEL  and
A. R. Twardock
H. W. Symonds
Affiliation:
Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois at Urbana, Urbana, Illinois, USA
R. H. Bubar
Affiliation:
Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois at Urbana, Urbana, Illinois, USA
W. CRACKEL
Affiliation:
Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois at Urbana, Urbana, Illinois, USA
A. R. Twardock
Affiliation:
Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois at Urbana, Urbana, Illinois, 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. Placental blood flow rate and calcium transfer rate were measured at 61 d of pregnancy in guinea-pigs carrying between one and eight foetuses.

2. Placental blood flow rate was significantly correlated with foetal weight. Ca transfer rate was related to placental size. Irrespective of litter size the mean amount of Ca transferred across a placenta was between 0.22 and 0.34 mg/h per g placental tissue.

3. It was concluded that there was a limit to the rate of transfer which was produced by a combination of limitations in placental blood flow rate, maternal plasma Ca concentration and placental tissue transfer capacity.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , March 1978 , pp. 347 - 356
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1978

References

REFERENCES

Alexander, G. (1964). J. Reprod. Fert. 7, 307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creasey, R. K., Barrett, C. T., De Swiet, M., Kahanpää, K. V. & Rudolph, A. M. (1972). Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 112, 566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckstein, P., McKeown, T. & Record, R. G. (1955). J. Endocr. 12, 108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leduc, B. (1972). Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 112, 374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makowski, E. L., Meschia, G., Droegemuller, W. & Battaglia, F. C. (1969). Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 101, 409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metcalf, J. & Parer, J. T. (1966). Am. J. Physiol. 210, 821.Google Scholar
Twardock, A. R., Symonds, H. W., Sansom, B. F. & Rowlands, G. J. (1973). Br. J. Nutr. 29, 437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulberg, L. C. & Lecce, J. G. (1971). J. Anim. Sci. 32, 395 Abstr.Google Scholar