Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T04:15:51.681Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A new bioassay for assessment of copper availability and its application in a study of the effect of molybdenum on the distribution of available Cu in ruminant digesta

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

J. Price  and
J. K. Chesters
J. Price
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
J. K. Chesters
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
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. Investigations were carried out on the feasibility of using an oral repletion technique in the rat to assess the bioavailability of copper in experimental sources providing no more than 250 μg Cu from any one source.

2. Preliminary studies on the response in plasma Cu ofpartially Cu-depleted rats given repletion doses of 20–50 μg Cu as CuSO4/d on four consecutive days indicated that this index of Cu status was insufficiently sensitive to Cu dose.

3. Incontrast, theactivityofcytochromecoxidase(EC 1. 9.3.1)in theduodenalmucosa ofpartiallycu-depleted rats showed a measurable and uniform response to 10 μg Cu as CuSO4/d given on three consecutive days. Furthermore, when the rats were given 0, 2.5, 5.0 or 10.0 μg Cu/d, the increase in cytochrome c oxidase activity above that of the unsupplemented control group was linearly related to Cu dose. The mean response in cytochrome c oxidase activity in groups of eight rats was therefore used to assess the availability of Cu from experimental sources relative to that of Cu as CuSO4, only 240 μg Cu being required from each experimental material.

4. The assay was used to study the effect of the Cu-antagonist molybdenum on the distribution of available Cu in digesta from sheep given dried grass either untreated (1.6 mg Mo/kg dry matter (DM)) or treated with ammonium molybdate (11.6 mg Mo/kg DM).

5. The relative availability of Cu in untreated dried grass (75%) was substantially higher than in rumen (12%), duodenal (43%) or ileal (28%) digesta. In all cases, addition of Mo to the diet resulted in a substantial reduction in Cu availability.

6. The effects of Mo on availabilitv of Cu are discussed with suecial reference to the Dossible involvement of thiomolybdates in the Cu-Mo antagonism.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , March 1985 , pp. 323 - 336
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1985

References

Bremner, I. (1970). British Journal of Nutrition 24, 769–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, N. J. & Laurie, S. H. (1982). Inorganica Chimica Acta 66, L35–L38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dallman, P. R. & Loskutoff, D. (1967). Journal of Clinical Investigation 46, 1819–1827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, N. T. & Reid, H. (1979). British Journal of Nutrition 41, 579–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dick, A. T. (1953). Australian Veterinary Journal 29, 233–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dick, A. T., Dewey, D. W. & Gawthorne, J. M. (1975). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 85, 567–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El-Gallad, T. T., Mills, C. F., Bremner, I. & Summers, R. (1983). Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry 18, 323–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. L. & Abraham, P. A. (1973). Journal of Nutrition 103, 196–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grace, N. D. (1975). British Journal of Nutrition 34, 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsieh, H. S. & Frieden, E. (1975). Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 67, 1326–1331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivan, M., Ihnat, M. & Viera, D. M. (1983). Canadian Journal of Animal Science 63, 163–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivan, M., Jui, P. & Hidiroglou, M. (1979). Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology 57, 369–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendall, M. G. & Stuart, A. (1963). Advanced Theory of Statistics, vol. 1. London: Griffin.Google Scholar
Kirchgessner, M. & Grassmann, E. (1970). Zietschrift für Tierphysiologie Tierernährung und Futtermittelkunde 26, 340–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowry, O. H., Rosebrough, N. J., Farr, A. L. & Randall, R. J. (1951). Journal of Biological Chemistry 193, 265–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marceau, N. & Aspin, N. (1973). Biochemica et Biophysica Acta 328, 338–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, J. (1978). Veterinary Science Communications 2, 85–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, C. F. (1957). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 8, S88–S95.Google Scholar
Mills, C. F. (1960). Proccedings of the Nutrition Society 19, 162–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, C. F., Bremner, I., El-gallad, T. T., Dalgarno, A. C. & Young, B. W. (1978). In Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Trace Element Metabolism in Man and Animals, pp. 150–158 [Kirchgessner, M., editor]. Weihenstephan: Arbeitskreis fur Tierernährungsforschung.Google Scholar
Mills, C. F. & Dalgarno, A. C. (1970). In Proceedings of the WAAP/IBP International Symposium on Trace Element Metabolism in Animals, pp. 456–460 [Mills, C. F., editor]. Edinburgh and London: E. & S. Livingstone.Google Scholar
Mills, C. F., Dalgarno, A. C., Bremner, I. & El-Gallad, T. T. (1977). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 36, 106A.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. L. & Tosic, J. (1949). Journal of General Microbiology 3, xvi–xvii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'dell, B. L. & Campbell, B. J. (1970). In Comprehensive Biochemistry vol. 21, p. 179 [Forkin, M. and Stotz, E. H., editors]. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Owen, C. A. (1964). American Journal of Physiology 207, 1203–1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, J., Chesters, J. K. & Will, A. M. (1981). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 41, 19A.Google Scholar
Stevenson, M. H. & Unsworth, E. F. (1978). British Journal of Nutrition 40, 491–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suttle, N. F. (1974 a). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 33, 299–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suttle, N. F. (1974 b). British Journal of Nutrition 32, 395–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suttle, N. F. (1975 a). British Journal of Nutrition 34, 411–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suttle, N. F. (1975 b). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 84, 255–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suttle, N. F. (1980). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 39, 63A.Google Scholar
Suttle, N. F. (1983). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 100, 651–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tridot, G. & Bernard, J. C. (1962). Acta Chimica Academiae Scientarium Hungaricae 34, 179–192.Google Scholar
Van Campen, D. R. & Mitchell, E. A. (1965). Journal of Nutrition 86, 120–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar