Display options
Cite
Gettinger RD. Use of doubly-labeled water ((3)HH (18)O) for determination of H 2O flux and CO 2 production by a mammal in a humid environment. Oecologia. 2004;59(1):54-7doi: 10.1007/BF00388071.
Gettinger, R. D. (1983). Use of doubly-labeled water ((3)HH (18)O) for determination of H 2O flux and CO 2 production by a mammal in a humid environment. Oecologia, 59(1), 54-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00388071
Gettinger, R D. "Use of doubly-labeled water ((3)HH (18)O) for determination of H 2O flux and CO 2 production by a mammal in a humid environment." Oecologia vol. 59,1 (1983): 54-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00388071
Gettinger RD. Use of doubly-labeled water ((3)HH (18)O) for determination of H 2O flux and CO 2 production by a mammal in a humid environment. Oecologia. 1983 Aug;59(1):54-7. doi: 10.1007/BF00388071. Epub 2004 Sep 13. PMID: 25024146.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Oecologia. 1983 Aug;59(1):54-7. doi: 10.1007/BF00388071. Epub 2004 Sep 13.

Use of doubly-labeled water ((3)HH (18)O) for determination of H 2O flux and CO 2 production by a mammal in a humid environment.

Oecologia

R D Gettinger

Affiliations

  1. Laboratory of Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, University of California and Biology Department, 90024, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

PMID: 25024146 DOI: 10.1007/BF00388071

Abstract

The accuracy of the doubly labeled water ((3)HH(18)O) technique for estimating H2O flux and CO2 production in pocket gophers was evaluated in laboratory experiments. Experiments were conducted under conditions of elevated humidity in order to determine the influence of unlabeled H2O vapor input on H2O flux and CO2 production rates which are determined from isotope turnover. High humidity is commonplace in burrows of many small mammals, including those of the pocket gopher, and theoretically could introduce substantial errors when determining these rates with isotopic procedures.Water influx that was estimated from tritium turnover was not significantly different from actual H2O influx which was determined from feeding rates. Also, (3)HH(18)O techniques yielded estimates of CO2 production that were not significantly different from values determined from energy intake rates. Such close agreement was not anticipated. The unexpected accuracy probably results due to offsetting errors associated with (1) the influx of unlabeled H2O vapor through the skin and lungs of labeled pocket gophers and (2) the effects of biological fractionation of isotopes in the body H2O of labeled pocket gophers.

References

  1. J Theor Biol. 1966 Sep;12(1):46-74 - PubMed
  2. J Biol Chem. 1957 May;226(1):153-6 - PubMed
  3. J Appl Physiol. 1957 Jan;10(1):108-26 - PubMed
  4. J Appl Physiol. 1955 May;7(6):704-10 - PubMed
  5. Can J Zool. 1975 Sep;53(9):1376-8 - PubMed
  6. Oecologia. 1981 Jan;51(2):253-259 - PubMed
  7. Am J Physiol. 1980 May;238(5):R454-65 - PubMed
  8. J Appl Physiol. 1967 Mar;22(3):453-60 - PubMed
  9. Comp Biochem Physiol A Comp Physiol. 1975 Jan 1;50(1A):55-6 - PubMed
  10. Physiol Rev. 1971 Oct;51(4):702-47 - PubMed
  11. Am J Physiol. 1960 Aug;199:238-42 - PubMed
  12. Anal Chem. 1975 Apr;47(4):646-50 - PubMed
  13. Am J Physiol. 1980 May;238(5):R466-73 - PubMed
  14. J Biol Chem. 1949 Sep;180(2):803-11 - PubMed
  15. Am J Physiol. 1958 Jan;192(1):76-8 - PubMed
  16. Comp Biochem Physiol. 1970 Jan 15;32(2):259-65 - PubMed
  17. Comp Biochem Physiol A Comp Physiol. 1974 Aug 1;48(4):733-43 - PubMed
  18. Am J Physiol. 1961 Jan;200:85-8 - PubMed
  19. J Biol Chem. 1947 May;168(2):459-69 - PubMed

Publication Types