Journal of Physiology and Biochemistry

, Volume 56, Issue 1, pp 9–16 | Cite as

Feed intake and protein skeletal muscle in growing mice treated with growth hormone: time course effects

  • Ma E. López-Oliva
  • A. Agis-Torres
  • Ma T. Únzaga
  • E. Muñoz-Martínez
Article
Received:

Abstract

The exogenous recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) administration on gastrocnemius muscle growth performance and its contribution to body growth of male and female BALB/c mice fed a 12% protein diet from 25 to 50 days of age, as well as the mechanism of utilization of feed intake to the lean muscle deposition were studied. Male and female weaning mice (21 days of age) were injected subcutaneously for 29 days with rhGH (74 ng.g-1) or saline vehicle (control). Feed intake and body weight (BW) were measured daily. At 25, 30, 35, 40, 45 and 50 days of age twenty mice were killed by cervical dislocation and the gastrocnemius muscle was isolated, weighed and the protein content was measured. The rhGH administration caused a biphasic response of BW and muscle growth as a consequence of age-specific feed intake changes. The initial feed intake fall induced the allometric proportion decreases in both muscle growth versus body growth and protein muscle versus muscle growth. That effect was due to ineffient utilization of energy and protein intake on protein muscle store. Later on, the self-controlled increase of feed intake leads to the recovery of muscle weight to control values, through nutrient partitioning toward non protein tissue showing a compensatory muscle growth. This suggests that a higher dietary protein level should be necessary for promoting the protein anabolic effect of GH during weaning.

Key words

rhGH-treatment Sex Weaning Muscle growth Protein intake Energy intake 

Efectos temporales sobre la ingesta y la proteína muscular esquelética en ratones tratados con GH

Resumen

Se estudia el efecto de la administración exógena de la hormona de crecimiento recombinante humana (rhGH) sobre el crecimiento corporal y muscular en ratones BALB/c de ambos sexos de entre 25 y 50 días de vida, alimentados con dietas con 12% de proteína. Tras el destete (21 días) los animales se distribuyen en 4 grupos según sexo (macho o hembra) y tratamiento: rhGH-tratados (74ng.g-1) y controles (solución salina) vía s.c. Se mide diariamente la ingesta y el peso corporal durante 29 días. A los 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, y 50 días de vida se sacrifican 20 ratones por dislocación cervical y se extrae el músculo gastrocnemio para su análisis. La administración de rhGH induce una respuesta bifásica derivada de su efecto sobre la ingesta: la caída inicial de la ingesta induce una disminución drástica tanto en la proporción en la que el peso y la proteína muscular crecen respecto al peso corporal y musclar (alometría), como en la aportación que la proteína muscular presenta respecto a la proteína de la carcasa. Ello se debe a la pérdida en la eficiencia de utilización de la energía y de la proteína de la dieta en el depósito proteico muscular de los animales tratados con GH. Sin embargo, la posterior hiperfagia autorregulada (35–50 días) facilita la recuperación del peso muscular hasta el nivel control mediante el depósito de componentes no proteicos, lo que señala la aparición de un crecimiento de carácter compensador. Ello sugiere la necesidad de un mayor nivel de proteína en la dieta para desarrollar el efecto anabólico proteico de la GH en ratones al destete.

Palabras clave

rhGH Sexo Destete Crecimiento muscular Ingesta proteica Aporte energético 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Agis-Torres, A. (1994). Ph. D. Thesis, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Agis-Torres, A., López-Oliva, M. E., Únzaga, M. T. and Muñoz-Martínez, E. (1996): Comp. Biochem. Physiol., 115, 317–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Agis-Torres, A., López-Oliva, M. E., Unzaga, M. T. and Muñoz-Martínez, E. (1995): Proc. Nutr. Soc., 54, 1.76.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Albertsson, W. K., Alm, F., Aronsson, S., Gustafsson, J., Hagenas, L., Hager, A., Ivarsson, S., Kristrom, B., Marcus, C., Moell, C., Nilsson, K. O., Ritzen, M., Tuvemo, T., Westgren, U., Westphal, O. and Aman, J. (1999): Acta Paediatr., 88, 80–84.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    AOAC (1990): Official methods of analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 15th ed., Washington.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Azain, M. J., Roberts, T. J., Martin, R. J. and Kasser, T. R. (1995): J. Anim. Sci., 73, 1019–1029.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boyd, R. D. and Bauman, D. E. (1989): In “Animal Growth Regulation” (Campion, D. R., Hausman, G. J. and Martin R. J., eds.). Plenum Press, New York, pp. 257–293.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Campbell, R. G., Steele, N. C., Caperna, T. J., McMurtry, J. P., Solomon, M. B. and Mitchell, A. D. (1989): J. Anim. Sci., 67, 177–186.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Campbell, R. G., Johnson, R. J., Taverner, M. R. and King, R. H. (1991): J. Anim. Sci., 69, 1522–1531.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dawson J. M., Greathead, H. M., Craigon, J., Hachey, D. L., Reeds, P. J., Pell, J. M. and Buttery, P. J. (1998): Br. J. Nutr., 79, 275–286.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dulloo, A. G. and Girardier, L. (1992): Metabolism, 41, 1336–1342.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Garlick, P. J., McNurlan, M. A., Bark, T., Lang, C. H. and Gelato, M. C. (1998): J. Nutr., 128, 356–359.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harrell, R. J., Thomas, M. J., Boyd, R. D., Czerwinski, S. M., Steele, N. C. and Bauman, D. E. (1997): J. Anim. Sci., 15, 152–160.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Issad, T., Coupé, C., Pastor-Anglada, M., Ferré, P. and Girard, J. (1988): Biochem. J., 251, 685–690.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kuromaru, R., Kohno, H., Ueyama, N., Hassan, H. M., Honda, S. and Hara, T. (1998): J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., 83, 3890–3896.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    López-Oliva, M. E., Agis-Torres, A., Unzaga, M. T. and Muñoz-Martínez, E. (1995): Can. J. Anim. Sci., 75, 593–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lowry, O. H., Rosebrough, N. J., Farr, A. L. and Randeel, R. (1951): J. Biol. Chem., 193, 265–275.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McBride, B. W. and Moseley, W. M. (1991): In “Biotechnology for Control of Growth and Product Quality in Meat Production: Implications and Acceptability” (Van der Wal, P., Weber, G.M. and Var der Wilt, F.J. eds.). Wagenigen, The Netherlands, Pudoc Pub., pp. 91–103.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    McLaren, D. G., Bechtel, P. J., Grebner, G. L., Novakofski, J., McKeith, F. K., Jones, R. W., Dalrymple, R. H. and Easter, R. A. (1990): J. Anim. Sci., 68, 640–651.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Milliken, G. A. and Johnson, D. E. (1984): In “Analysis of Messy Data. Volume I: Designed Experiments”, (Van Nostrand Reinhold). NY, pp. 29–45.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reeves, P. G., Forrest, H. N. and George, C. F. (1993): J. Nutr., 23, 1939–1951.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Roberts, T. J., Azain, M. J., White, B. D. and Martin, R.J. (1995): J. Nutr., 125, 2669–2678.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Roberts, T. J. and Azain M. J. (1995): Growth Dev. Aging, 59, 3–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Roberts, T. J. and Azain M. J. (1997): J. Nutr., 127, 2047–2053.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Searle, T. W., Murray, J. D. and Baker, P. J. (1992): J. Endocrinol., 132, 285–291.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sevè, B., Ballèvre, O., Ganier, P., Noblet, J., Prugnaud, J. and Obled C. (1993): J. Nutr., 123, 529–540.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shanahan, C. M., Rigby, N. W., Murray, J. D., Marshall, J. T., Townrow, C. A., Nancarrow, C. D. and Ward, K. A. (1989): Mol. Cell. Biol., 9, 5473–5479.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Solomon M. B., Caperna, T. J., Mroz, R. J. and Steele, N. C. (1994): J. Anim. Sci., 72, 615–621.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wallace, T. D. and Silver, J. L. (1988): “Econometrics, an Introduction”. Addison-Wesley Publishing, Massachusetts, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Universidad de Navarra 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ma E. López-Oliva
    • 1
  • A. Agis-Torres
    • 1
  • Ma T. Únzaga
    • 1
  • E. Muñoz-Martínez
    • 1
  1. 1.Sección Departamental de Fisiología Animal, Facultad de FarmaciaUniversidad Complutense de MadridMadrid(Spain)

Personalised recommendations