Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T01:06:03.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relative nutritional availability to rats of selenium in Finnish spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) fertilized or sprayed with sodium selenate and in an American winter bread wheat naturally high in Se*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Marja Mutanen ,
Pekka Koivistoinen ,
Virginia C. Morris  and
Orville A. Levander
Marja Mutanen
Affiliation:
Department of Nutrition, University of Helsinki, Viikki, SF-00710 Helsinki, Finland
Pekka Koivistoinen
Affiliation:
Department of Food Chemistry and Technology, University of Helsinki, Viikki, SF-00710 Helsinki, Finland
Virginia C. Morris
Affiliation:
US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, Vitamin and Mineral Nutrition Laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland 20705, USA
Orville A. Levander
Affiliation:
US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, Vitamin and Mineral Nutrition Laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland 20705, 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. A Finnish national programme to fertilize crops with sodium selenate led us to compare the nutritional availability to rats of selenium in two Finnish spring wheats (Triticum aestivum L.), either fertilized or sprayed with sodium selenate, with that in an American winter bread wheat naturally high in Se.

2. Weanling male rats were given a Se-deficient Torula yeast diet for 4 weeks followed by either continued depletion or repletion for 4 weeks with graded levels of Se as sodium selenite (standard) or wheat (test food). Plasma and liver Se levels and plasma and liver glutathione peroxidase (EC 1.11.1.9; GSH-Px) activities were used as criteria of body Se status.

3. The availability of Se under these conditions was calculated with the point-slope technique at two dietary levels of Se (Expt 1) and with the slope-ratio method (Expt 2).

4. In the point-slope assay, the level of dietary Se fed had a considerable effect on the apparent availability values obtained which made interpretation of the results difficult. In the slope-ratio assay, no difference in the availability of Se from the various wheats was observed when plasma or liver Se levels were used as the response criteria.

5. The Se in the fertilized wheat was somewhat more available than that in the sprayed wheat when plasma or liver GSH-Px activities were the response criteria. Overall, availability values (% ) derived by averaging all four response criteria were 86, 77 and 73 for the fertilized and sprayed Finnish wheats and the American wheat respectively (sodium selenite 100).

6. These results show that wheat is a relatively available source of Se to rats regardless of whether its Se content is naturally high or is increased by fertilization or spraying.

Type
Papers of direct relevance to Clinical and Human Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , May 1987 , pp. 319 - 329
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1987

References

REFERENCES

Alexander, A. R., Whanger, P. D. & Miller, L. T. (1983). Journal of Nutrition 113, 196–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beilstein, M. A. & Whanger, P. D. (1984). Third International Symposium on Selenium in Biology and MedicineMay 28-June 1Beijing Abstr.Google Scholar
Cantor, A. H., Scott, M. L. & Noguchi, T. (1975). Journal of Nutrition 105, 96–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Combs, G. F. Jr, Zhou, Y.-P., Su, Q. & Wu, K. (1984). Third International Symposium on Selenium in Biology and MedicineMay 28-June 1Beijing, Abstr.Google Scholar
Douglass, J. S., Morris, V. C., Soares, J. H. & Levander, O. A. (1981). Journal of Nutrition 111, 2180–2187.Google Scholar
Finney, D. J. (1971). Statistical Method in Biological Assay, 2nd ed, pp. 1–668. London: Griffin.Google Scholar
Gabrielsen, B. O. & Opstvedt, J. (1980). Journal of Nutrition 110, 1089–1095.Google Scholar
Gissel-Nielsen, G. (1986). Annals of Clinical Research 18, 61–64.Google Scholar
Hoffman, I., Westerby, R. J. & Hidiroglou, M. (1968). Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 51, 1039–1042.Google Scholar
Koivistoinen, P. & Huttunen, J. K. (1986). In Trace Elements in Man and Animals vol. 5, pp. 925–929 [Mills, C. F., editor]. Edinburgh: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Levander, O. A. (1983). Federation Proceedings 42, 1721–1725.Google Scholar
Levander, O. A., Alfthan, G., Arvilommi, H., Gref, C. G., Huttunen, J. K., Kataja, M., Koivistoinen, P. & Pikkarainen, J. (1983). American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 37, 887–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, K. (1978). Cereal Chemistry 55, 287–294.Google Scholar
Mutanen, M. & Koivistoinen, P. (1983). International Journal of Vitamin and Nutrition Research 53, 102–108.Google Scholar
Mutanen, M., Koivistoinen, P., Morris, V. C. & Levander, O. A. (1986). British Journal of Nutrition 55, 219–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, O. E., Novacek, E. J., Whitehead, E. I. & Palmer, I. S. (1970). Phytochemistry 9, 1181–1188.Google Scholar
Reamer, D. C. & Veillon, C. (1981). Analytical Chemistry 53, 2166–2169.Google Scholar
Robinson, M. F., Rea, H. M., Friend, G. M., Stewart, R. D. H.Snow, P. C. & Thomson, C. D. (1978). British Journal of Nutrition 39, 589–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunde, R. A., Gutzke, G. E. & Hoekstra, W. G. (1981). Journal of Nutrition 111, 76–86.Google Scholar
Varo, P. & Koivistoinen, P. (1981). International Journal of Vitamin and Nutrition Research 51, 79–84.Google Scholar
Yasumoto, K., Iwamimi, K. & Yoshida, M. (1979). Journal of Nutrition 109, 760–766.Google Scholar
Zhou, R., Sun, S., Zhai, F., Man, R., Guo, S., Wang, H. & Yang, G. (1983). Acta Nutrimenta Sinica 5, 137–144.Google Scholar