Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T10:20:53.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of dietary protein and non-protein nitrogen on liver glutamate dehydrogenase activity in the chick

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2010

K. H. Davis  and
C. H. Martindale
K. H. Davis
Affiliation:
Wye College (University of London), Ashford, Kent
C. H. Martindale
Affiliation:
Wye College (University of London), Ashford, Kent
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. Diets containing varying levels of crude protein (CP) in the range 9.5–18.5% with and without supplements of diammonium citrate (DAC) as a source of non-protein nitrogen (NPN) were given to 160 growing chicks from 2 to 4 weeks of age, and their livers were assayed for glumate dehydrogenase (GDH) activity.

2. Growth rate and total liver protein were increased by raising the protein level from 9.5 to 18.5% CP. Chicks receiving 9.5 or 12.5% CP were heavier when they had also received 1.94% DAC. At 18.5% CP the addition of 3.88% DAC depressed growth.

3. GDH activity per unit liver weight and total GDH activity increased with dietary protein level but there were no consistent responses to DAC supplements. It was concluded that liver GDH activity did not provide a useful index of the utilization of NPN.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , March 1972 , pp. 319 - 325
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1972

References

Ashida, K. (1963). In Newer Methods of Nutritional Biochemistry p.159 [Albanese, A. A., editor]. New York and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Blair, R. & Waring, J. J. (1969). Br. Poult. Sci. 10, 37.Google Scholar
Featherston, W. R. (1967). In Urea as a Protein Supplement p.445 [Briggs, M. H., editor]. Oxford: Pergamon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedland, R. A., Martin, K. D. & McFarIand, L. Z. (1966). Poult. Sci. 45, 98j.Google Scholar
Harper, A. E. (1965). Can. J. Biochem. 43, 1589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knox, W. E., Auerbach, V. H. & Lin, E. C. C. (1956). Physinl. Rev. 36, 164.Google Scholar
Lee, D. J. W., McNab, J. M., Shannon, D. W. F. & Blair, R. (1970). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 29, 23AGoogle Scholar
Lowry, O. H., Rosebrough, N. J., Farr, A. L. & Randall, R. J. (1951). J. biol. Chem. 193, 265.Google Scholar
Moran, E. T. Jr, Summers, J. D. & Pepper, W. F. (1967). Poult. Sci. 46, 1134.Google Scholar
Murumatsu, K. & Ashida, I.. (1962). J. Nutr. 76, 143.Google Scholar
Shannon, D. W. F., Blair, R., McNab, J. M. & Lee, D. J. W. (1970). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 29, 23A.Google Scholar
Wergedal, J. E. & Harper, A. E. (1964). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. Med. 116, 600.Google Scholar