Advertisement

Intestinal Content of the Copper-Binding Protein in Brindled, Blotchy and Crinkled Mice and Cellular Copper Transport

  • J. H. Lipton
  • F. Bronner
Chapter
Part of the Experimental Biology and Medicine book series (EBAM, volume 2)

Abstract

The copper-binding protein (CuBP) content of the proximal intestine of mutant mice and their age-matched litter mate controls was evaluated by means of an equilibrated chromatographic column procedure. Brindled (Mobr) mice exhibited higher CuBP content when very young (2-3 days); thereafter their CuBP dropped below that of the controls, perhaps because of diminished growth and development prior to death at 11 days. Blotchy (Mob1) mice also exhibited higher CuBP levels at an early age (3–5 days). Over the next 6 days, CuBP levels were similar in the blotchy mutants and controls, and became higher in mutants 13–20 days old. In crinkled (cr/cr) mice, intestinal CuBP levels were higher at ages 8-9 and 16–17 days. This complicated developmental pattern was not matched by copper uptake as evaluated in isolated intestinal cells. Cellular copper uptake decreased with age in crinkled and control mice, with no significant differences between the two groups. Cells from brindled or blotchy mice also did not differ in copper uptake from that of their controls. It is concluded that CuBP plays no role in cellular copper uptake and is not a direct expression of the mottled gene.

Keywords

Mutant Mouse Intestinal Cell Ammonium Acetate Buffer Direct Expression Copper Uptake 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. (1).
    D. M. Danks, E. Cartwright, B. J. Stevens, and R. W. Townley, Science, 179, 1140 (1973).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. (2).
    D. M. Hunt, Nature, 249, 852 (1974),PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. (3).
    D. M. Hunt, Life Sciences, 19, 1913 (1976).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. (4).
    B. C. Starcher, J. Nutr., 97, 321 (1969).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. (5).
    M. Buckley and F. Bronner, Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 202, 235 (1980).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. (6).
    R. P. Singh and F. Bronner in “Calcium-Binding Proteins: Structure and Function,” F. L. Siegel, E. Carafoli, R. H. Kretsinger, D. H, MacLennan and R. H. Wasserman, eds., Elsevier North Holland, New York, 1980, p. 379 ff.Google Scholar
  7. (7).
    F. Bronner, J. Lipton, D. Pansu, M. Buckley, R. Singh and A. Miller, III. Fed. Proc., In Press (1981).Google Scholar
  8. (8).
    T.-H, Ueng, E, E. Golub and F. Bronner, Arch. Biochem, Biophys., 196, 624 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. (9).
    D. Pansu, C. Bellaton and F. Bronner, Am. J. Physiol, 240, G32 (1981).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. T.-H. Ueng and F. Bronner, Arch. Biochem. Biophys., 197, 205 (1979).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Humana Press Inc. 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. H. Lipton
    • 1
  • F. Bronner
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Oral BiologyUniversity of Connecticut Health CenterFarmingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations