AJP - GI Fuel your research with LabChart
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 251: G124-G131, 1986;
0193-1857/86 $5.00
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Holt, P. R.
Right arrow Articles by Yeh, K. Y.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Holt, P. R.
Right arrow Articles by Yeh, K. Y.

AJP - Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology, Vol 251, Issue 1 124-G131, Copyright © 1986 by American Physiological Society


ARTICLES

Ileal hyperplastic response to starvation in the rat

P. R. Holt, S. Wu and K. Y. Yeh

The ability to respond to changes in the external and internal environments is a fundamental characteristic of intestinal structure and function. We compared the responses of the rat proximal and distal small intestine to the stresses of fasting and refeeding in the rat. In the duodenum, 3 days of starvation caused villus and crypt hypoplasia, reduced incorporation of [3H]thymidine into crypt cells, decreased cell migration rate on the villus, and lowered specific and total activities of several cellular enzymes. These changes were reversed by 1 day of refeeding. In contrast, mucosal hypoplasia did not occur in the ileum during fasting, and the specific activities of the disaccharidases were increased after 3 days of starvation. However, ileal [3H]thymidine incorporation, thymidine kinase activity, and ornithine decarboxylase activity decreased during starvation. These effects were also reversed by refeeding. The results of these studies illustrate differing responses for the proximal and distal small intestine and suggest the presence of distinctly differing mechanisms for the control of their mucosal mass and enzyme activities.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online