Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-68ccn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T13:50:06.736Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of goat's-milk folate-binding protein on transport of 5-methyltetrahydrofolate in neonatal-goat small intestinal brush-border-membrane vesicles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2010

Dallynn. Salter  and
Peter Blakeborough
Dallynn. Salter
Affiliation:
Department of Pig Nutrition and Production, AFRC Institute for Grassland and Animal Production, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AQ
Peter Blakeborough
Affiliation:
Department of Food Quality and Human Nutrition, AFRC Institute of Food Research, Reading Laboratory, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
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. The influence of goat's-milk folate-binding protein (FBP) on the uptake of 5-methyltetrahydrofolate (MTHF) by brush-border-membrane vesicles prepared from the small intestine of the 6-d-old goat was investigated using a rapid-filtration assay.

2. Uptake of MTHF by the membrane vesicles was strongly enhanced by FBP within the pH range 4·5-6·5, with an optimum at pH 5-5·5.

3. Both the initial rate of MTHF uptake and uptake of MTHF at equilibrium were markedly increased in the presence of FBP.

4. Uptake of MTHF by brush-border-membrane vesicles was maximal when the molar ratio FBP: MTHF was 1·0-2·5.

5. The relation between pH and 125I-labelled FBP binding to the membranes was similar to that for uptake of MTHF, with an optimum at pH 5.

6. In experiments in which the osmotic pressure of the incubation medium was progressively increased with cellobiose, 125I-labelled FBP was found to be taken up primarily by binding to the brush-border-membrane surface.

7. Uptake of 125I-labelled FBP was time-dependent and saturable, with a Km of 0·39 (SE 0·07) μM and Vmax of 6·73 (SE 0·92) μg/mg protein.

8. Experiments in which various milk proteins (cow FBP, goat FBP, α-lactalbumin, β-lactoglobulin, bovine serum albumin and lactoferrin) were allowed to compete in turn with 125I-labelled FBP for uptake by brush-border-membrane vesicles indicated that high-affinity binding was probably specific to FBP, although lactoferrin reduced uptake possibly by non-specific coating of the mucosal surface.

9. It was concluded that a folate transport mechanism mediated by the FBP in milk exists at the intestinal brush border of neonatal goats. It is suggested that this may reinforce the developing endogenous transport system.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 59 , Issue 3 , May 1988 , pp. 497 - 507
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1988

References

Antony, A. C., Kane, M. A. & Kolhouse, J. F. (1983). Blood 62, 35a.Google Scholar
Bensadoun, A. & Weinstein, D. (1976). Analytical Biochemistry 70, 241–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blair, J. A. & Matty, A. J. (1974). Clinics in Castroenterology 3, 183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blakeborough, P. & Salter, D. N. (1985). Abstracts of the XIIIth International Congress of Nutrition, Brighton, p. 149.Google Scholar
Blakeborough, P. & Salter, D. N. (1988). British Journal of Nutrition 59, 485–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blakeborough, P., Salter, D. N. & Gurr, M. I. (1983). Biochemical Journal 209, 505–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, A. E. & Hunter, W. M. (1973). Biochemical Journal 133, 529–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colman, N., Hettiarachchy, N. & Herbert, V. (1981). Science 211, 1427–1429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eilam, Y., Ariel, M., Jablonska, M. & Grossowicz, N. (1981). American Journal of Physiology 240, G170–G175.Google Scholar
Ford, J. E. (1974). British Journal of Nutrition 31, 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, J. E., Knaggs, G. S., Salter, D. N. & Scott, K. J. (1972). British Journal of Nutrition 27, 571–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, J. E., Salter, D. N. & Scott, K. J. (1969). Journal of Dairy Research 36, 435–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbert, V., Hettiarachchy, N. & Colman, N. (1979). Blood 54, Suppl. 1, 39A.Google Scholar
Hopfer, U., Nelson, K., Perrotto, J. & Isselbacher, K. I. (1973). Journal of Biological Chemistry 248, 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kane, M. A., Antony, A. C. & Kolhouse, J. F. (1984). Clinical Research 32, 310a.Google Scholar
Kane, M. A., Kolhouse, J. F. & Waxman, S. (1986). In Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Nutrition, pp. 447–450 [Taylor, T. G. and Jenkins, N. K., editors]. London: John Libby.Google Scholar
Leslie, G. J. & Rowe, P. B. (1972). Biochemistry 11, 1696–1703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lever, J. E. (1980). CRC Critical Reviews of Biochemistry 7, 187–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, M. L., Schneider, W., Haberich, F. J. & Blair, J. A. (1975). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London series B 192, 39–48.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, I. L. & Donaldson, R. M. (1972). Journal of Clinical Investigation 51, 2465–2471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masson, P. L. & Heremans, J. F. (1971). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 39 B, 119–129.Google Scholar
Masson, P. L., Heremans, J. F., Schonne, E. & Crabbe, P. A. (1969). Protides of the Biological Fluids 16, 633–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagasawa, T., Kiyosawa, I. & Kuwahara, K. (1972). Journal of Dairy Science 55, 1651–1659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, J. A. & Gallagher, N. D. (1985). Gastroenterology 88 908912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salter, D. N., Scott, K. J., Slade, H. & Andrews, P. (1981). Biochemical Journal 193, 469–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seetharam, B., Bakke, J. E. & Alpers, D. H. (1983). Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 115, 238–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selhub, J., Arnold, R., Smith, A. M. & Picciano, M. F. (1984). Nutrition Research 4, 181–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selhub, J. & Rosenberg, I. H. (1981). Journal of Biological Chemistry 256, 4489–4493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svendsen, I., Hansen, S. I., Holm, J. & Lyngbye, J. (1982). Carlsberg Research Communications 47, 371–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trugo, N. M. F., Ford, J. E. & Salter, D. N. (1985). British Journal of Nutrition 54, 269–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trugo, N. M. F. & Salter, D. N. (1986). In Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Nutrition, pp. 453–456 [Taylor, T. G. and Jenkins, N. K. editors]. London: John Libby.Google Scholar
Wagner, C. (1982). Annual Review of Nutrition 2, 229–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waxman, S. & Schreiber, C. (1975). Federation of European Biochemical Societies Letters 55, 128–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar