Oral glutamine does not prevent bacterial translocation in rats subjected to intestinal obstruction and Escherichia coli challenge but reduces systemic bacteria spread

• Published in: Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, Calif.) Vol. 18; no. 4; pp. 334 - 337
• Main Authors: Salvalaggio, Paolo R.O, Neto, Clementino Zeni, Tolazzi, André R.D, Gasparetto, Emerson L, Coelho, Júlio C.U, Campos, Antonio C.L
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York, NY Elsevier Inc 01.04.2002; Elsevier
• Subjects: Administration, Oral; Animals; Bacterial diseases; bacterial translocation; Bacterial Translocation - physiology; Biological and medical sciences; Escherichia coli; Escherichia coli - physiology; Experimental bacterial diseases and models; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Fundamental immunology; glutamine; Glutamine - administration & dosage; Glutamine - physiology; gut barrier; immune system; Immunobiology; Infectious diseases; intestinal obstruction; Intestinal Obstruction - microbiology; Intestinal Obstruction - pathology; Male; Medical sciences; Modulation of the immune response (stimulation, suppression); Rats; Rats, Wistar; immune system; intestinal obstruction; bacterial translocation; glutamine; gut barrier; Escherichia coli; Rat; Mucosa; Supplemented diet; Bacteria; Intestinal disease; Enterobacteriaceae; Permeability barrier; Immune system; Translocation; Immunostimulation; Digestive system; Rodentia; Gut; Feeding; Infection; Vertebrata; Experimental disease; Mammalia; Aminoacid; Animal; Bacteriosis; Digestive diseases; Macronutrient; Glutamine
• ISSN: 0899-9007; 1873-1244
• DOI: 10.1016/S0899-9007(01)00750-X

Objective: We investigated whether oral glutamine prevents bacterial translocation. Methods: Male Wistar rats were fed with isocaloric and isoproteic standard rat chow and randomly assigned to receive glutamine (GLN) or glycine administered through an orogastric tube at 1.5 g · kg −1 · d −1 for 7 d. On day 8 of the study, the animals were anesthetized and intestinal obstruction was produced by ligature of the terminal ileum. A suspension containing 10 9 colony-forming units per milliliter of Escherichia coli ATCC 25992 was injected into the lumen of the ileum. Twenty-four hours later, blood was withdrawn, and mesenteric lymph nodes and fragments of spleen, liver, and lung were sent for microbiological analysis. Cultures were done on blood agar and MacConkey agar. Student’s t test and analysis of variance between two proportions were used. P < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: Rats in both groups lost body weight during the experiment (not significant). Mesenteric lymph node cultures were positive in both groups. The GLN group had a smaller percentage of E. coli in blood and organ cultures (65.45% versus 82.67% in the glycine group; P = 0.027). Positive cultures of blood, spleen, liver and lung also were higher on glycine group, although not significantly. Conclusions: Oral GLN does not prevent bacterial translocation in rats after intestinal obstruction and E. coli challenge. No specific organ was protected by GLN. Nevertheless, its use was associated with a reduced number of positive E. coli cultures in blood and remote organs, and thus diminished bacteria spread. This association suggests a role for GLN in gut barrier protection, possibly by immune system enhancement.