Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T03:06:31.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relative contribution of cysteine and methionine to glutathione content and thyroid hormone levels in the rat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

C. Suberville ,
P. Higueret ,
D. Taruoura ,
H. Garcin  and
D. Higueret
C. Suberville
Affiliation:
Laboratoire Physiologie de la Nutrition, Département Alimentation et Nutrition, Université Bordeaux I, avenue des Faculés, 33405 Talence-Cédex, France
P. Higueret
Affiliation:
Laboratoire Physiologie de la Nutrition, Département Alimentation et Nutrition, Université Bordeaux I, avenue des Faculés, 33405 Talence-Cédex, France
D. Taruoura
Affiliation:
Laboratoire Physiologie de la Nutrition, Département Alimentation et Nutrition, Université Bordeaux I, avenue des Faculés, 33405 Talence-Cédex, France
H. Garcin
Affiliation:
Laboratoire Physiologie de la Nutrition, Département Alimentation et Nutrition, Université Bordeaux I, avenue des Faculés, 33405 Talence-Cédex, France
D. Higueret
Affiliation:
Laboratoire Biochimie Médicale, Hôpital Pellegrin, Place Raba Léon, 33000 Bordeaux, France
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. For a period of 24 d rats were given diets containing either casein or pea (Pisum sativum) protein at two different concentrations (180 and 120 g/kg) without or with cysteine or cysteine + methionine supplementation.

2. The effects of these diets on levels of blood and liver reduced glutathione (GSH) and serum thyroid hormones were studied.

3. When compared with the 180 g casein/kg diet, the 120 g casein/kg diet decreased liver GSH and serum thyroid hormone concentrations. These changes were related to dietary cysteine supply since supplementation induced an increase in these variables.

4. When compared with 180 g pea protein/kg diet, the 120 g pea protein/kg diet decreased liver GSH and serum thyroid hormone concentrations. These changes could not be corrected by cysteine or cysteine + methionine supplementation.

Type
General Nutrition papers
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , July 1987 , pp. 105 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1987

References

REFERENCES

Abrams, G. M. & Larsen, P. R. (1973). Journal of Clinical Investigation 52, 2522–2531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akerboom, T. P. M. & Sies, H. (1981). Methods of Enzymology 77, 372–373.Google Scholar
Balsam, A. & Ingbar, S. H. (1978). Clinical Research 26, 489A.Google Scholar
Bradford, M. M. (1976). Analytical Biochemistry 72, 248–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brasel, J. A. (1980). Pediatric Research 14, 1299–1303.Google Scholar
Cho, E. S., Johnson, N. & Snider, B. C. F. (1984). Journal of Nutrition 114, 1853–1862.Google Scholar
Chopra, I. J. (1978). Science 199, 904–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chopra, I. J., Ho, R. S. & Lan, R. (1972). Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine 80, 729–739.Google Scholar
Garcin, H. & Higueret, P. (1977). Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l'Académie des Sciences, Paris 285, 531–533.Google Scholar
Hasting, M. M. & Zeman, F. J. (1979). Journal of Nutrition 109, 1925–1933.Google Scholar
Higueret, P. & Garcin, H. (1982). Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism 26, 191–200.Google Scholar
Higueret, P. & Garcin, H. (1984 a).Journal de Physiologie, Paris 79, 373–377.Google Scholar
Higueret, P. & Garcin, H. (1984 b). Annales d'Endocrinologie 45, 149–150.Google Scholar
Imai, Y., Kataoka, N. & Nishikimi, M. (1980). Endocrinologia Japonica 27, 201–207.Google Scholar
Ingbar, S. H. & Galton, V. A. (1975). Endocrinology 96, 1525–1532.Google Scholar
Ingenbleek, Y. & Beckers, C. (1975). Lancet i, 845–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D., Rousset, B., Perrin, F., Fournier, M. & Orgiazzi, J. (1980). Endocrinology 107, 1245–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, J. (1965). In Methods in Enzymatic Analysis, pp. 632–635 [Bergmayer, H., editor]. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Löhr, G. W. & Walter, H. D. (1965). In Methods in Enzymatic Analysis, pp. 636–443 [Bergmayer, H., editor]. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mariash, C. N., Kaiser, F. E. & Oppenheimer, J. H. (1980). Endocrinology 106, 22–27.Google Scholar
Morley, J. E., Melmed, S., Redo, A., Kasson, B. G., Levin, S. R., Pekary, A. E. & Hershman, J. M. (1978). American Journal of Physiology 238, E174–EI79.Google Scholar
Murphy, B. P. & Jachan, C. (1965). Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine 66, 161–167.Google Scholar
Okamura, K., Taurog, A. & Krulich, L. (1981). Endocrinology 108, 1247–1256.Google Scholar
Oppenheimer, J. H., Schwartz, H. L., Shapiro, H. C., Bernstein, G. & Surks, M. (1970). Journal of Clinical Investigation 49, 1016–1024.Google Scholar
Schussler, G. C. & Orlando, J. (1978). Science 199, 686–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sowers, J. E., Stokland, W. L. & Meade, R. (1972). Journal of Animal Science 35, 782–788.Google Scholar
Stockland, W. L., Meade, R. J., Wass, D. J. & Sowers, J. E. (1973). Journal of Animal Science 36, 526–530.Google Scholar
Tateishi, N., Higashi, T., Naruse, A., Hikita, K. & Sakamoto, Y. (1981). Journal of Biochemistry 90, 1603–1610.Google Scholar
Vigouroux, E. (1972). Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l'Académie des Sciences, Paris 275, 579–582.Google Scholar
Visser, T. J., Van Der Does-Tobe, T., Docter, R. & Henneman, G. (1976). Biochemical Journal 157, 479–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yousef, M. K. & Johnson, H. D. (1968). Endocrinology 82, 353–358.Google Scholar