Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:33:01.836Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of pectin on the structure and function of the rat small intestine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

R. C. Brown ,
J. Kelleher  and
M. S. Losowsky
R. C. Brown
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, St James's (University) Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF
J. Kelleher
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, St James's (University) Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF
M. S. Losowsky
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, St James's (University) Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF
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 effect of pectin on the structure and function of the rat small intestine was compared with that of a standard pellet diet and of a fibre-free basal diet.

2. The length and wet weight of the small bowel was significantly greater inpect in-fed rats than in either pellet- or basal-diet-fed rats.

3. Histological measurements of longitudinal sections from the small bowel showed a significantly greater crypt depth and muscle layer thickness in the mid-jejunum and ileum of the pectin fed rats. Villous height showed less variation.

4. The specific activity of alkaline phosphatase (EC 3.1.3.1)and leucyl-P-naphthylamidase (EC 3.4.11.1) in mucosal scrapings was significantly lower in the upper jejunum of pectin-fed rats compared with either of the other dietary groups. The differences were not so marked in mid-jejunum or ileum.

5. Glucose absorption measured in vivo from jejunal and ileal loops was similar in all three dietary groups.

6. With two minor exceptions there were no significant differences in any of these measurements between the pellet- and basal-diet-fed rats.

7. These findings could be explained by increased epithelial cell turnover caused by pectin. The possible mechanisms of this are discussed.

8. The effect of pectin on the human small bowel requires study before it can be widely prescribed in man.

Type
Papers of direct relevance to Clinical and Human Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 42 , Issue 3 , November 1979 , pp. 357 - 365
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1979

References

Addis, T. (1932). Am. J. Physiol. 99. 417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. C., Kelleher, J., Walker, B. E. & Losowsky, M. S. (1979). Br. J. Nutr. 41, 455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cullen, R. W. & Oace, S. M. (1978). J. Nutr. 108, 640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowling, R. H., Riecken, E. O., Laws, J. W. & Booth, C. C. (1967). Clin. Sci. 32, 1.Google Scholar
Dunnill, M.S. & Whitehead, R. (1972). J. clin. Path. 25, 243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ershoff, N. H. (1974). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 27, 1395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, J. E. (1957). Am. J. Physiol. 188, 550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleeson, M. H., Cullen, J. & Dowling, R. H. (1972). Clin. Sci. 43, 731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleeson, M.H., Dowling, R. H. & Peters, T. J. (1972). Clin. Sci. 43, 743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatcher, D. W. & Goldstein, G. (1969). Analyt. Biochem. 31, 42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyden, S. (1956). K. LantbrHögsk. Annlr 22, 411.Google Scholar
Jenkins, D. J. A., Leeds, A. R., Newton, C. & Cummings, J. H. (1975). Lancer i, 1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, R. M. & Truswell, A. S. (1977). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 30, 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krebs, H. A. & Henseleit, K. (1932). Hoppe-Seyler's Z. Physiol. Chem. 210, 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leveille, G. A. & Sauberlich, H. E. (1966). J. Nutr. 88, 209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowry, O. H., Rosebrough, N. J., Farr, A. L. & Randall, R. J. (1951). J. biol. Chem. 193, 265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miettinen, T. A. & Tarpiia, S. (1977). Clinica chim. Acta 79, 471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordström, C. & Dahlqvist, A. (1973). Scand. J. Gastroenterol. 8, 407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, T. J., Müller, M. & de Duve, C. (1972). J. exp. Med. 136, 1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheff, M. F. & Smyth, D. H. (1955). J. Physiol., Lond. 128, 67P.Google Scholar
Truswell, A. S. (1977). Nutr. Rev. 35, 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierda, J. L. (1950). Anat. Rec. 107, 221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Younoszai, M. K., Adedoyin, M. & Ranshaw, J. (1978). J. Nutr. 108, 341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar