Effect of Long-Term Feeding of Soy-Based Diets on the Pancreas of Cebus Monkeys
Feeding soy-based protein containing trypsin inhibitor causes pancreatic hypertrophy in the rat, and long-term feeding (up to 2 years) has revealed a high incidence of adenoma following hypertrophy. It was therefore of interest to determine whether the ingestion of soy-based protein has any adverse effects on the primate pancreas. A resource of 27 Cebus albifrons monkeys, previously used to evaluate the protein quality of several soy and milk proteins, has been maintained on semi-synthetic diets for 3 to 4 years; the protein sources for the diets were casein, lactalbumin, soy isolate and soy concentrate. In general the monkeys were in good physical health and their weights were appropriate for age and sex. Serum biochemical and hematological profiles were normal and there were no major differences between the groups. A pancreatic biopsy from both the head and tail region of the pancreas was taken from each monkey. Visual observation of the pancreas revealed no overt pathology; two independent histological examinations indicated no diet-related differences between groups, and biochemical analyses of trypsin, chymotrypsin, protein, DNA and RNA revealed no differences. It is concluded that feeding low level trypsin inhibitor-containing diets for up to 4 years caused no adverse effects in the pancreas of the Cebus nonhuman primate.
KeywordsTrypsin Inhibitor Dietary Group Trypsin Inhibitor Activity Cebus Monkey Pancreatic Biopsy
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Adrian, T.E., Pasquali, C., Pescota, F., Bacarese-Hamilton, A.J., and Bloom, S.R. (1982). Soya induced pancreatic hypertrophy and rise of circulating cholecystokinin. Gut. 23, A889.Google Scholar
- Ausman, L.M., Gallina, D.L., Hayes, K.C. and Hegsted, D.M. (1985). Comparative assessment of soy and milk protein quality in infant cebus monkeys. Am. J. Clin. Nut., in press.Google Scholar
- Green, G.M., and Lyman, R.L. (1972). Feedback regulation of pancreatic enzyme secretion as a mechanism for trypsin inhibitor-induced hypersecretion in rats. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med., 140, 6–12.Google Scholar
- Gumbmann, M.R., Rackis, J.J., Liener, I.E., and Spangler, W.L. (1984). The USDA trypsin inhibitor study: III. Pancreatic effects of dietary trypsin inhibitor in rats for two years. Fed. Proc., 43, 792.Google Scholar
- Hamerstrand, G.E., Black, L.T., and Glover, J.D.(1981). Trypsin inhibitors in soy products: modification of the standard analytical procedure. Cereal Chem., 58, 42–65.Google Scholar
- Hasdai, A. and Liener, I.E. (1983). Growth, digestibility and enzymatic activites in the pancreas and intestines of hamsters fed raw and heated soy flour. J. Nutrition, 113, 662–668.Google Scholar
- Levison, D.A., Morgan, R.G.H., Brimacombe, J.S., Hopwood, D., Coghill, G., and Wormsley, K.G. (1979). Carcinogenic effects of di (2-hydroxypropyl) nitrosamine (DHPN) in male Wistar rats: promotion of pancreatic cancer by a raw soya flour diet. Scand. J. Gastroenterol., 14, 217–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Liener, I.E. and Kakade, M.L. (1980). Protease Inhibitors. In “Toxic Constituents of Plant Foodstuffs”, I.E. Liener, Ed., 2nd edition, Academic Press, New York, pp 7–71.Google Scholar
- Nitsan, Z. and Liener, E.D. (1976). Enzymic activities in the pancreas, digestive tract and feces of rats fed raw or heated soy flour. J. Nutr., 106, 300–305.Google Scholar
- Rackis, J.J. and Gumbmann, M.R. (1981). Protease inhibitors: physiological properties and nutritional significance. In “Antinutrients and Natural Toxicants in Foods”, R.L. Ory, Ed., Food and Nutrition Press, Westport, Connecticut, pp 203–237.Google Scholar
- Snedecor, G.W. and Cochran, W.G., Eds. (1980). In “Statistical Methods”, Seventh Edition, Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, p. 41–43.Google Scholar
- Struthers, B.J., MacDonald, J.R., Dahlgren, R.R. and Hopkins, D.T.(1983). Effects on the monkey, pig and rat pancreas of soy products with varying levels of trypsin inhibitor and comparison with the administration of cholecystokinin. J. Nutr., 113, 86–97.Google Scholar