Journal of Nutrition OpenSOurce Diets- www.ResearchDiets.com

Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Journal of Nutrition Vol. 21 No. 2 February 1941, pp. 115-124
Copyright
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Henderson, M. D.
Right arrow Articles by Mitchell, H. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Henderson, M. D.
Right arrow Articles by Mitchell, H. S.

The Effect of Dry Heat Upon the Anticataractogenic Quality of Certain Proteins1

Mary D. Henderson2 and Helen S. Mitchell

Department of Home Economics Research, Massachusetts State College, Amherst

1. Since protein appears to exert a protective action against galactose cataract in rats, the question has been raised as to whether the type of treatment which is known to decrease the growth value of a protein will also affect its cataractinhibiting quality.
2. Four proteins, casein, egg albumin, wheat gluten and beef fibrin, were fed as purchased and after heating for 96 hours at 125°C. Each protein was incorporated into a 25% galactose ration at a level to provide 15% of protein.
3. The growth value of these proteins was damaged by heat in the decreasing order: gluten, casein, fibrin, egg albumin.
4. The anticataractogenic property of these proteins was diminished by heating in the decreasing order: casein, egg albumin, gluten, fibrin.
5. Since the losses in the two properties of protein due to exposure to heat do not run parallel, it follows that the amino acid or group of amino acids which exert the protective action are not the same as those essential for growth.
6. In some instances the blood sugar values correlated with the more rapid cataract development but there is considerable doubt as to whether the degree of galactemia alone can account for the differences in lenticular injury.
7. It is possible that the protein factor may be protective by some local action in the eye rather than by influencing galactose metabolism.


1 Contribution no. 375 of the Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station, from the Department of Home Economics Research.

2 Most of the data reported in this paper were presented by Mary D. Henderson in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science, Massachusetts State College.

Manuscript received 9 September 1940.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Arch OphthalmolHome page
C. REZENDE and F. A. d. M. CAMPOS
CATARACT IN RATS FED A LOW PROTEIN DIET
Arch Ophthalmol, December 1, 1942; 28(6): 1038 - 1041.
[Abstract] [PDF]




Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]