2002
DOI: 10.1079/bjnbjn2001520
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Energy balance of pregnant diabetic rats

Abstract: Pregnancy and diabetes lead to metabolic alterations in the energy balance that may not be completely independent. The objective of the present study was to look at the alterations induced by type 1 diabetes mellitus on the energy balance of pregnant rats and the offspring. Diabetes was induced by streptozotocin injection 15 d before the starting of pregnancy. The rats had their energy balance variables followed for 21 d. Protein, fat and energy content of dams was determined from samples of the carcasses. Pre… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
0
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 47 publications
1
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our results show that severe maternal DM did not affect insulin and glucose plasma levels at birth and weaning. However, it is noteworthy that using the same protocol we have previously described increased glucose levels of newborns from diabetic mother, born by cesarean (Yamada et al, 2002). Thus, these findings are in agreement with the hypothesis that there is a capacity for B cell neogenesis, which could be limited to the early neonatal period, as proposed by Gasparo et al, 1980.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…Our results show that severe maternal DM did not affect insulin and glucose plasma levels at birth and weaning. However, it is noteworthy that using the same protocol we have previously described increased glucose levels of newborns from diabetic mother, born by cesarean (Yamada et al, 2002). Thus, these findings are in agreement with the hypothesis that there is a capacity for B cell neogenesis, which could be limited to the early neonatal period, as proposed by Gasparo et al, 1980.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%