Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T01:40:42.196Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dietary fat and N-nitrosation in the rat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

F. W. Ward  and
M. E. Coates
F. W. Ward
Affiliation:
The Robens Institute, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 5XH
M. E. Coates
Affiliation:
The Robens Institute, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 5XH
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. Groups of four conventional (CV) rats ate natural or purified diets either with or without 100 g fat/kg and drank 0.235 M-sodium nitrate. The fats tested were butterfat, coconut oil, olive oil, maize oil and safflower oil.

2. Decreased urinary excretion of N-nitrosoproline (NPRO) was observed in rats fed on fat-supplemented diets compared with those fed on low-fat diets, with butterfat having the greatest effect of the fats tested.

3. Reduced excretion of NPRO was not the result of inhibition of the intragastric N-nitrosation reaction or absorption of nitrosamine from the gastrointestinal tract.

4. The availability of nitrite in aqueous solution was decreased by the fat diets but the effect was similar in all the fats tested.

5. Nitrate reductase activity was present in the forestomach contents of CV rats at pH > 4 and was apparently inhibited by feeding a fat diet. No nitrate reductase activity was detected in stomach contents of germ-free rats.

6. Nitrate reductase activity in stomach and small intestinal tissue was not altered by feeding a fat diet.

7. It was concluded that nitrate reductase activity in stomach contents was of microbial origin and the decreased urinary excretion of NPRO on feeding the fat diets was mainly due to the inhibition of nitrate reductase activity in stomach contents.

Type
Clinical and Human Nutrition papers: Other Studies Relevant to Human Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , September 1987 , pp. 221 - 231
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1987

References

REFERENCES

Agrelo, C., Phillips, J. C., Lake, B. G., Longland, R. C. & Gangolli, S. D. (1978). Toxicology 10, 159–167.Google Scholar
Cole, C. B., Fuller, R., Mallett, A. K. & Rowland, I. R. (1985). Journal of Applied Bacteriology 59, 549–553.Google Scholar
Chu, C. & Magee, P. N. (1981). Cancer Research 41, 3653–3657.Google Scholar
Dailey, R. E., Braunberg, R. C. & Blaschka, A. M. (1975). Toxicology 3, 23–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kato, R. (1977). Xenobiotica 7, 25–92.Google Scholar
Kato, T. & Kikugawa, K. (1984). Food and Chemical Toxicology 22, 419–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmark, H. L. & Mergens, W. J. (1981). In Inhibition of Tumour Induction and Development, pp. 127–168 [Zedeck, M. and Lipkin, M., editors]. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Ohshima, H. (1983). IARC Scientific Publications 45, 333–341.Google Scholar
Shechter, H., Gruenar, N. & Shuval, H. I. (1972). Analytica Chimica Acta 60, 93–99.Google Scholar
Ward, F. W., Coates, M. E. & Walker, R. (1986). Food and Chemical Toxicology 24, 17–22.Google Scholar
Wise, A. (1982). Archives of Toxicology 50, 287–299.Google Scholar