Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T02:18:29.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The uptake of radioactive copper by the brain and other tissues of the developing rat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Deirdre Ryan  and
P. J. Warren
Deirdre Ryan
Affiliation:
Department of Biochemistry, The London Hospital Medical College, London, E 1
P. J. Warren
Affiliation:
Department of Biochemistry, The London Hospital Medical College, London, E 1
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. 64Cu as copper chloride in aqueous solution was given by intraperitoneal injection to rats varying in age from a few hours to 14 weeks. The isotope was allowed to circulate in the body for 24 h.

2. The amount of gamma radioactivity present in the brain and blood was measured and the percentage of the initial dose present was calculated. It was shown that the brain 64Cu activity reached a maximum around the 16th day of life and that the blood showed a steady decrease in the 64Cu activity per g from birth to maturity. Measurements were also made on the liver and kidney.

3. The excretion of 64Cu in the urine and faeces in 24 h was also studied. Approximately 30% of the isotope was excreted in that time, mostly in the faeces.

4. A limited number of experiments in three different age groups were carried out to discover whether changes in specific activity of the isotope given to rats had a significant effect on the percentage of 64Cu taken up by the brain and blood. No such effect was seen.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , September 1970 , pp. 727 - 734
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1970

References

REFERENCES

Burtin, P. (1959). Clinica chim. Acta 4, 72.Google Scholar
Cartwright, G. E., Hodges, R. E., Gubler, C. J., Mahoney, J. P., Daum, K., Wintrobe, M. M. & Bean, W. B. (1954). J. clin. Invest. 33, 1487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cumings, J. N. (1948). Brain 71, 410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dobbing, J. (1961). Physiol. Rev. 41, 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobbing, J. (1967). Sci. J. 3, 81.Google Scholar
Evans, G. W. & Wiederanders, R. E. (1967). Am. J. Physiol. 213, 1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fell, B. F., Mills, C. F. & Boyne, R. (1965). Res. vet. Sci. 6, 170.Google Scholar
Gallagher, C. H., Judah, J. D. & Rees, K. R. (1956 a). Proc. R. Soc. B 145, 134.Google Scholar
Gallagher, C. H., Judah, J. D. & Rees, K. R. (1956 b). Proc. R. Soc. B 145, 195.Google Scholar
Gubler, C. J., Cartwright, G. E. & Wintrobe, M. M. (1957). J. biol. Chem. 224, 533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, C. G. (1961). Wilson's Disease: Some Current Concepts p. 64 [Walshe, J. M. and Cumings, J. N., editors]. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Howell, J. McC. & Davison, A. N. (1959). Biochem. J. 72, 365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lumsden, C. E. (1950). J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiat. 13, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, C. F. & Williams, R. B. (1962). Biochem. J. 85, 629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, C. A. Jr (1965). Am. J. Physiol. 209, 900.Google Scholar
Scheinberg, H. & Gitlin, D. (1952). Science, N. Y. 116, 484.Google Scholar
Wainio, W. W., Wende, C. V. & Shimp, N. F. (1959). J. biol. Chem. 234, 2433.Google Scholar