Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T13:45:39.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth and development of rats artificially reared on a high or a low plane of nutrition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

J. L. Smart ,
D. N. Stephens  and
H. B. Katz
J. L. Smart
Affiliation:
Department of Child Health, University of Manchester, The Medical School, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PT
D. N. Stephens
Affiliation:
Department of Child Health, University of Manchester, The Medical School, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PT
H. B. Katz
Affiliation:
Department of Child Health, University of Manchester, The Medical School, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PT
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. In order to exclude the possibility of differences in maternal care which are known to result from typical methods of undernutrition during the suckling period, rat pups were reared artificially on different planes of nutrition away from their mothers.

2. Artificial rearing was accomplished by fitting infant rats with a gastric cannula through which a milk substitute was infused intermittently. Rats were fed thus from 4 to 21 d on a high (ARHI) or a low (ARLO; 44% of ARHI level) plane of nutrition. Underfeeding of the ARLO group was continued till 25 d, after which all rats were given a good-quality pelleted diet ad lib.

3. Compared with mother-reared (MR) litter-mates, ARHI rats showed advanced eye-opening and, at 21 and 25 d, they resisted restraint more strongly.

4. Growth in body-weight of ARHI and MR rats was similar but, when autopsied at 32 weeks, the ARHI rats were shorter (nose–rump length) and had lighter gastrocnemius muscles, adrenals and brains, but heavier epididymal-fat pads.

5. ARLO rats had deficits at 32 weeks compared with ARHI rats in whole body, kidney and epididymal-fat-pad weights, and in tibia length.

6. In a second experiment, ARHI and MR rats were killed at 21 d. All the differences found at 32 weeks were already present at 21 d. In addition, the ARHI pups had enlarged livers and intestines but shorter tibias.

7. The milk substitute, which is one commonly used in such studies, has a low protein and high carbohydrate content compared with rats' milk. This difference probably caused the abnormal organ growth of ARHI rats.

Type
Paper on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , May 1983 , pp. 497 - 506
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1983

References

Ackerman, S. H. & Shindledecker, R. (1978). Devl Psychobiol. 11, 385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adlard, B. P. F., Dobbing, J. & Smart, J. L. (1973). Biol. Neonate 23, 95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, T. A., Rafferty, C. J., Birkhofer, K. K. & Fomon, S. J. (1980). J. Nutr. 110, 2374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, S. A. & Burn, J. (1967). Nature, Lond. 213, 150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coward, W. A., Cole, T. J., Gerber, H., Roberts, S. B. & Fleet, I. (1982). Pflügers Arch. 393, 344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, M. (1973). Br. J. Psychol. 64, 435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diaz, J., Moore, E., Petracca, F., Schacher, J. & Stamper, C. (1981). Physiol. Behav. 27, 1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diaz, J., Samson, H., Kessler, D., Stamper, C., Moore, E., Robisch, E. & Hodson, A. (1980). Ped. Res. 14, 595.Google Scholar
Diaz, J. & Schain, R. J. (1978). Science, N.Y. 199, 90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobbing, J. (1981). In Infant and Child Feeding, p. 399 [Thompson, A. M., Bond, J., Filer, L., Leveille, G. A. and Weil, W., editors]. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Godbole, V. Y., Grundleger, M. L., Pasquine, T. A. & Thenen, S. W. (1981). J. Nutr. 111, 480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, P. (1979). In Nutrition: Pre- and Postnatal Development, p. 1 [Winick, M., editor]. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Hall, W. G. (1975). Science, N.Y. 190, 1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, H. B., Rosett, R. E. & Ostwald, R. (1979). Devl Psychobiol. 12, 305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, S. (1959). Can. J. Psychol. 13, 243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, S. & Mullins, R. F. (1968). In Early Experience and Behavior, p. 168 [Newton, G. and Levine, S., editors]. Springfield, Ill.: C. C. Thomas.Google Scholar
Levitsky, D. A. & Barnes, R. H. (1970). Nature, Lond. 225, 468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCance, R. A. (1976). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 35, 309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messer, M., Thoman, E. B., Terrasa, A. G. & Dallman, P. R. (1969). J. Nutr. 98, 404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plaut, S. M. (1970). Devl Psychobiol. 3, 157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, P. A. (1971). Psychol. Bull. 75, 192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smart, J. L. (1980). Devl Psychobiol. 13, 431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smart, J. L. & Dobbing, J. (1971). Brain Res. 33, 303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smart, J. L., Dobbing, J., Adlard, B. P. F., Lynch, A. & Sands, J. (1973). J. Nutr. 103, 1327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smart, J. L., Katz, H. B. & Stephens, D. N. (1981). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 40, 64A.Google Scholar
Smart, J. L., Stephens, D. N. & Katz, H. B. (1982). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 41, 12A.Google Scholar
Sonnenberg, N., Bergstrom, J. D., Ha, Y. H. & Edmond, J. (1982). J. Nutr. 112, 1506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whatson, T. S. & Smart, J. L. (1978). Physiol. Behav. 20, 749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widdowson, E. M. & McCance, R. A. (1960). Proc. Roy. Soc. B 152, 188.Google Scholar