4.3 Article

Dietary ratio of protein to carbohydrate induces plastic responses in the gastrointestinal tract of mice

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00360-009-0402-0

关键词

Digestion; Food composition; Gut; Macronutrients; Phenotypic plasticity

资金

  1. Danish Research Council
  2. National Research Centre for Growth and Development, New Zealand

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Some vertebrates change the size of their digestive system in response to quantity and fibre content of ingested food, but the effects of dietary nutrients on gut structure remain poorly understood. Here we investigate how the protein to carbohydrate ratio of diets affects the mass of the gastrointestinal tract in mice. We fed 6-week-old male mice one of five isocaloric diets differing only in protein to carbohydrate ratio (the no-choice treatments), while a further four treatment groups received nutritionally complementary food pairings from which they could self-select a diet (the choice treatments). After 32 days, we measured the resulting dry mass of stomachs, intestines, caeca and colons. In the no-choice treatments, the stomachs were heavier in the mice fed diets containing more protein and less carbohydrate, indicating that larger stomachs may be needed for efficient digestion of the protein-rich food. In contrast, intestines, caeca and colons were heavier when diets contained more carbohydrates and less protein. This response may function to increase the digestive rate of carbohydrates when the dietary content of this macronutrient increases, but it may also indicate a compensatory response to increase amino acid uptake from a protein-deficient food. Mice in the choice treatments self-selected a diet with a protein to carbohydrate ratio of 0.46, and had gut dimensions similar to the expectation derived from no-choice treatments for this diet composition. Our results provide an example of plasticity in the differential allocation of resources to organ function, which is triggered by variation in resource quality.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据