| Literature DB >> 11955290 |
Gislaine Ventrucci1, Maria Alice Roston de Mello, Maria Cristina Cintra Gomes-Marcondes.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is known that amino acid oxidation is increased in tumor-bearing rat muscles and that leucine is an important ketogenic amino acid that provides energy to the skeletal muscle.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2002 PMID: 11955290 PMCID: PMC111198 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-2-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Body weight gain (total body weight on 20th day), food intake, tumor weight/carcass weight, fetal weight of the groups studied.
| Body weight gain (%) | Food intake (%) | Tumor weight/carcass weight (%) | Fetal weight (g) | |
| C | 30,21 ± 0,27 | 98,77 ± 4,55 | ||
| N | 45,02 ± 1,32 a | 95,75 ± 4,85 | 3,73 ± 0,13 | |
| WN | 22,83 ± 0,53 b | 40,01 ± 3,56 ab | 7,81 ± 0,27 | 1,61 ± 0,22 b |
| Np | 26,01 ± 1,07 b | 2,98 ± 0,34 | ||
| L | 43,19 ± 1,30 a | 82,40 ± 8,64 | 3,45 ± 0,16 | |
| WL | 24,87 ± 0,61 b | 41,29 ± 3,63 ab | 7,46 ± 0,33 | 1,15 ± 0,16 b |
| Lp | 26,78 ± 0,44 b | 2,77 ± 0,44 |
Body weight gain was determined from the rate final body weight gain in relation to initial body weight gain (%). Food intake was expressed as a percentage of initial and final food intake (%) Data are reported as means ± SE from 10 animals per group. Groups: control (C); pregnant control (N); pregnant tumor-bearing (WN); pregnant control pair-fed to tumor-bearing groups (Np); pregnant control receiving a leucine supplemented diet (L), pregnant tumor-bearing receiving a leucine supplemented diet (WL) and pregnant control leucine pair-fed group (Lp). a p < 0,05 compared to control group (C); b p < 0,05 N vs WN and L vs WL.
Glucose, total protein and albumin serum of the groups studied.
| Glucose serum (nmol/L-1) | Serum total protein (g/dL) | Serum albumin (g/dL) | |
| C | 5,35 ± 0,15 | 7,86 ± 0,50 | 2,30 ± 0,29 |
| N | 4,23 ± 0,21 a | 6,47 ± 0,49 | 2,81 ± 0,31 |
| WN | 3,56 ± 0,15 ac | 5,06 ± 0,32 | 2,20 ± 0,23c |
| Np | 4,17 ± 0,21 a | 5,82 ± 0,23 | 2,70 ± 0,33 |
| L | 5,34 ± 0,21 b | 5,90 ± 0,48 | 2,92 ± 0,28 |
| WL | 4,90 ± 0,18 b | 4,72 ± 0,24 | 2,28 ± 0,32 c |
| Lp | 5,26 ± 0,11 b | 5,59 ± 0,26 | 3,14 ± 0,51 |
Data are reported as means ± SE from 10 animals per group. Groups: control (C); pregnant control (N); pregnant tumor-bearing (WN); pregnant control pair-fed to tumor-bearing groups (Np); pregnant control receiving a leucine supplemented diet (L), pregnant tumor-bearing receiving a leucine supplemented diet (WL) and pregnant control leucine pair-fed group (Lp). a p < 0,05 compared to control group (C); b p < 0,05 comparison among L, WL and Lp groups to N, WN and Np, respectively, c p < 0,05 N vs WN and L vs WL.
Figure 1Changes in gastrocnemius muscle weight (A) and protein content (B) in virgin and pregnant groups. C, virgin control group; N pregnant group; WN pregnant tumor-bearing group; Np pregnant pair-fed group; leucine supplemented diet groups: L pregnant group; WL pregnant tumor-bearing and Lp pregnant pair-fed group. Data are means ± SE. a p < 0.05 vs control group (C), differences were determined using two-way ANOVA followed by Dun's test.
Figure 2Changes in glucose (A), methionine (B) and leucine (C) intestinal absorption rates in virgin and pregnant groups. C, virgin control group; N pregnant group; WN pregnant tumor-bearing group; Np pregnant pair-fed group; leucine supplemented diet groups: L pregnant group; WL pregnant tumor-bearing and Lp pregnant pair-fed group. Data are means ± SE. a p < 0.05 vs control group (C); b p < 0.05 comparison N vs WN, Np, and L VS WL; c p < 0.05 comparison normoprotein diet vs excess diet.