Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T06:58:06.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The retention of ascorbic acid by guinea-pig tissues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

R. E. Hughes ,
R. J. Hurley  and
P. R. Jones
R. E. Hughes
Affiliation:
University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology, Cardiff
R. J. Hurley
Affiliation:
University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology, Cardiff
P. R. Jones
Affiliation:
University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology, Cardiff
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. Male and female guinea-pigs with high tissue concentrations of L-xyloascorbic acid (ascorbic acid, AA) and male guinea-pigs with high tissue concentrations of D-araboascorbic acid (isoascorbic acid, isoAA) were given a scorbutogenic diet and the rates of depletino from various tissues were measured fro both isomers.

2. The loss of AA from the brain and eye lens was considerably less rapid than the loss from the adrenal glands, spleen and aqueous humour. After 14nd on the AA-free diet the AA concentrations in the brain and eye lens were 24 and 27% respectively of the initial concentrations; the corresponding values for the aqueous humour, adrenal glands and spleen were 3,4 and 5%. There was no apparent sex difference in the rate of loss of AA.

3. The loss of isoAA was much more rapid than that of AA in the spleen, adrenal glands and aqueous humour; in the brain and eye lens the depletion patterns of the two isomers were similar.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , November 1971 , pp. 433 - 438
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1971

References

REFERENCES

Bessey, O. A. (1938). J. biol. Chem. 126, 771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brook, M. & Grimshaw, J. J. (1968). J. Am. Geriat. Soc. 16, 1331.Google Scholar
Fabianek, J. & Herp, A. (1967). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol. Med. 125, 462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginter, E., Bobek, P. & Gerbelová, M. (1965). Nutritio Dieta 7, 103.Google Scholar
Heath, H. (1962). Expl Eye Res. 1, 362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, R. E. (1956). Biochem. J. 64, 203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, R. E. & Hurley, R. J. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, R. E., Hurley, R. J. & Jones, P. R. (1971). Expl Eye Res. (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Hughes, R. E. & Jones, P. R. (1970). Nutr. Rep. int. 1, 275.Google Scholar
Hughes, R. E. & Jones, P. R. (1971). Br. J. Nutr. 25, 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, R. E. & Maton, S. C. (1968). Br. J. Haemat. 14, 247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, G. R. (1961). Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 92, 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pauling, L. (1968). Science N. Y. 160, 265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelletier, O. (1969). Can J. Physiol. Pharmacol. 47, 993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penney, J. R. & Zilva, S. S. (1946). Biochem. J. 40, 695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raiha, N. (1958). Acta physiol. scand. Suppl. no. 155, p. 24.Google Scholar
Shanklin, D. R. & O'Dell, T. E. (1966). Nature, Lond. 210, 1329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, A. (1968). Br. J. Derm. 80, 625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar