Hormonal and metabolic responses to overfeeding in three genotypes of ducks
Muscovy, Pekin and Mule duck are different in their body weight. To make a valid comparison in the lipid metabolism between these three genotypes, overfeeding was carried out by providing the animals with amounts of food in proportion to their body weight. Under these conditions, Muscovy ducks devel...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Comparative biochemistry and physiology. A, Comparative physiology Comparative physiology, 2003-04, Vol.134 (4), p.707-715 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Muscovy, Pekin and Mule duck are different in their body weight. To make a valid comparison in the lipid metabolism between these three genotypes, overfeeding was carried out by providing the animals with amounts of food in proportion to their body weight. Under these conditions, Muscovy ducks developed a strong liver steatosis, whereas it was not very pronounced in the Mule ducks and even less in the Pekin ducks. On the contrary, Pekin ducks showed a much marked extrahepatic fattening. At the beginning of overfeeding, there was a similarity in the three genotypes as regards the post-heparin lipoprotein–lipase (LPL) activity and the insulin and glucagon concentrations. After 10 days of overfeeding, the LPL activity dramatically fell in Muscovy and in Mule ducks, whereas it remained steady in Pekin ducks. Compared to values found at the beginning of the overfeeding period, plasma glucagon and insulin shown no evolution, except for the insulin of Pekin ducks which was dramatically higher. Those data suggest that high plasma insulin concentrations measured in Pekin ducks after 10 days of overfeeding can be responsible for the maintenance of the LPL activity, which favors the extrahepatic fattening to the detriment of liver steatosis. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1095-6433 0300-9629 1531-4332 |
DOI: | 10.1016/S1095-6433(02)00365-3 |