Urinary recovery of orally administered chromium 51–labeled EDTA, lactulose, rhamnose, d-xylose, 3-O-methyl-d-glucose, and sucrose in healthy adult male Beagles

Rafael Frias Central Animal Laboratory, University of Turku, 20520, Turku, Finland.
Department of Equine and Small Animal Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland.

Search for other papers by Rafael Frias in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, MS
,
Jörg M. Steiner Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843.

Search for other papers by Jörg M. Steiner in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 Dr Med Vet, PhD
,
David A. Williams Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843.

Search for other papers by David A. Williams in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 MA, VetMB, PhD
,
Satu Sankari Department of Equine and Small Animal Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland.

Search for other papers by Satu Sankari in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, PhD
, and
Elias Westermarck Department of Equine and Small Animal Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Helsinki, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland.

Search for other papers by Elias Westermarck in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, PhD

Abstract

Objective—To provide values for gastrointestinal permeability and absorptive function tests (GIPFTs) with chromium 51 (51Cr)-labeled EDTA, lactulose, rhamnose, d-xylose, 3-O-methyl-d-glucose, and sucrose in Beagles and to evaluate potential correlations between markers.

Animals—19 healthy adult male Beagles.

Procedures—A test solution containing 3.7 MBq of 51Cr-labeled EDTA, 2 g of lactulose, 2 g of rhamnose, 2 g of d-xylose, 1 g of 3-O-methyl-d-glucose, and 8 g of sucrose was administered intragastrically to each dog. Urinary recovery of each probe was determined 6 hours after administration.

Results—Mean ± SD (range) percentage urinary recovery was 6.3 ± 1.6% (4.3% to 9.7%) for 51Cr-labeled EDTA, 3.3 ± 1.1% (1.7% to 5.3%) for lactulose, 25.5 ± 5.0% (16.7% to 36.9%) for rhamnose, and 58.8% ± 11.0% (40.1% to 87.8%) for 3-O-methyl-d-glucose. Mean (range) recovery ratio was 0.25 ± 0.06 (0.17 to 0.37) for 51Cr-labeled EDTA to rhamnose, 0.13 ± 0.04 (0.08 to 0.23) for lactulose to rhamnose, and 0.73 ± 0.09 (0.60 to 0.90) for d-xylose to 3-O-methyl-d-glucose. Median (range) percentage urinary recovery was 40.3% (31.6% to 62.7%) for d-xylose and 0% (0% to 0.8%) for sucrose.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Reference values in healthy adult male Beagles for 6 of the most commonly used GIPFT markers were determined. The correlation between results for 51Cr-labeled EDTA and lactulose was not as prominent as that reported for humans and cats; thus, investigators should be cautious in the use and interpretation of GIPFTs performed with sugar probes in dogs with suspected intestinal dysbiosis.

Abstract

Objective—To provide values for gastrointestinal permeability and absorptive function tests (GIPFTs) with chromium 51 (51Cr)-labeled EDTA, lactulose, rhamnose, d-xylose, 3-O-methyl-d-glucose, and sucrose in Beagles and to evaluate potential correlations between markers.

Animals—19 healthy adult male Beagles.

Procedures—A test solution containing 3.7 MBq of 51Cr-labeled EDTA, 2 g of lactulose, 2 g of rhamnose, 2 g of d-xylose, 1 g of 3-O-methyl-d-glucose, and 8 g of sucrose was administered intragastrically to each dog. Urinary recovery of each probe was determined 6 hours after administration.

Results—Mean ± SD (range) percentage urinary recovery was 6.3 ± 1.6% (4.3% to 9.7%) for 51Cr-labeled EDTA, 3.3 ± 1.1% (1.7% to 5.3%) for lactulose, 25.5 ± 5.0% (16.7% to 36.9%) for rhamnose, and 58.8% ± 11.0% (40.1% to 87.8%) for 3-O-methyl-d-glucose. Mean (range) recovery ratio was 0.25 ± 0.06 (0.17 to 0.37) for 51Cr-labeled EDTA to rhamnose, 0.13 ± 0.04 (0.08 to 0.23) for lactulose to rhamnose, and 0.73 ± 0.09 (0.60 to 0.90) for d-xylose to 3-O-methyl-d-glucose. Median (range) percentage urinary recovery was 40.3% (31.6% to 62.7%) for d-xylose and 0% (0% to 0.8%) for sucrose.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Reference values in healthy adult male Beagles for 6 of the most commonly used GIPFT markers were determined. The correlation between results for 51Cr-labeled EDTA and lactulose was not as prominent as that reported for humans and cats; thus, investigators should be cautious in the use and interpretation of GIPFTs performed with sugar probes in dogs with suspected intestinal dysbiosis.

Contributor Notes

Dr. Williams' present address is Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61802.

Supported by the Finnish Veterinary Foundation and Helvi Knuuttila Foundation.

The authors thank Hans Helenius for statistical assistance.

Address correspondence to Dr. Frias (raffri@utu.fi).
  • 1.

    Suchodolski JS, Steiner JM. Laboratory assessment of gastrointestinal function. Clin Tech Small Anim Pract 2003; 18:203210.

  • 2.

    Bjarnason I, MacPherson A, Hollander D. Intestinal permeability: an overview. Gastroenterology 1995; 108:15661581.

  • 3.

    Steiner JM, Williams DA, Moeller EM. Kinetics of urinary recovery of five sugars after orogastric administration in healthy dogs. Am J Vet Res 2002; 63:845848.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Hall E, Batt R, Brown A. Assessment of canine intestinal permeability, using 51Cr-labeled ethylenediaminetetraacetate. Am J Vet Res 1989; 50:20692074.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Garden O, Rutgers H, Sørensen S, et al. Reference range and repeatability of a combined intestinal permeability and function test in clinically healthy Irish setter dogs. Res Vet Sci 1997; 63:257261.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Frias R, Sankari S, Westermarck E. 51Cr-EDTA absorption blood test: an easy method for assessing small intestinal permeability in dogs. J Vet Intern Med 2004; 18:156159.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Rodríguez H, Berghoff N, Suchodolski JS, et al. Kinetic analysis of 5 sugar probes in dog serum after orogastric administration. Can J Vet Res 2009; 73:217223.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Maxton D, Bjarnason I, Reynolds A, et al. Lactulose, 51Cr-labelled ethylenediaminetetra-acetate, L-rhamnose and poly-ethyleneglycol 400 [corrected] as probe markers for assessment in vivo of human intestinal permeability. Clin Sci (Lond) 1986; 71:7180.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Johnston K, Ballèvre O, Batt R. Use of an orally administered combined sugar solution to evaluate intestinal absorption and permeability in cats. Am J Vet Res 2001; 62:111118.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Hollander D, Ricketts D, Boyd C. Importance of ‘probe’ molecular geometry in determining intestinal permeability. Nutr Ther 1988; 2:3538.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Prescott MJ, Morton DB, Anderson D, et al. Refining dog husbandry and care. Lab Anim 2004; 38:194.

  • 12.

    Hall EJ. Small intestinal disease—is endoscopic biopsy the answer? J Small Anim Pract 1994; 35:408414.

  • 13.

    Russell WMS, Burch RL. Part two: the progress of humane technique. In: The principles of humane experimental technique. London: Methuen & Co Ltd, 1959;239.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Randell SC, Hill RC, Scott KC, et al. Intestinal permeability testing using lactulose and rhamnose: a comparison between clinically normal cats and dogs and between dogs of different breeds. Res Vet Sci 2001; 71:4549.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Iqbal T, Lewis K, Gearty J, et al. Small intestinal permeability to mannitol and lactulose in the three ethnic groups resident in west Birmingham. Gut 1996; 39:199203.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Menzies IS, Zuckerman MJ, Nukajam WS, et al. Geography of intestinal permeability and absorption. Gut 1999; 44:483489.

  • 17.

    Weber M, Martin L, Dumon H, et al. Influence of age and body size on intestinal permeability and absorption in healthy dogs. Am J Vet Res 2002; 63:13231328.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    Sabnis S. Factors influencing the bioavailability of peroral formulations of drugs for dogs. Vet Res Commun 1999; 23:425447.

  • 19.

    Steiner JM, Williams DA, Moeller EM. Development and validation of a method for simultaneous separation and quantification of 5 different sugars in canine urine. Can J Vet Res 2000; 64:164170.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Frias R, Harmoinen J, Laitinen-Vapaavuori O, et al. Small intestinal permeability and serum folate and cobalamin absorption after surgical construction of permanent jejunal fistulas in laboratory Beagle dogs. Comp Med 2010; 60:369373.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Batt R, Hall E, McLean L, et al. Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth and enhanced intestinal permeability in healthy Beagles. Am J Vet Res 1992; 53:19351940.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22.

    Riordan S, McIver C, Thomas D, et al. Luminal bacteria and small-intestinal permeability. Scand J Gastroenterol 1997; 32:556563.

Advertisement