A matter of chow

Kozul holding standard chow (left) and purified chow (right). Credit: Photo by Jon Gilbert Fox Three hours after a particular poster session began at the 2007 Society for Toxicology meeting, the line to see Courtney Kozul's poster still wrapped around the room, and she had collected 90 business cards. Cl

By | March 1, 2009

<figcaption>Kozul holding standard chow (left) and purified chow
                (right). Credit: Photo by Jon Gilbert Fox</figcaption>
Kozul holding standard chow (left) and purified chow (right). Credit: Photo by Jon Gilbert Fox

Three hours after a particular poster session began at the 2007 Society for Toxicology meeting, the line to see Courtney Kozul's poster still wrapped around the room, and she had collected 90 business cards. Clearly, her findings on the effects of diet on gene expression in mice were of interest.

In 2006, under the guidance of Joshua Hamilton at the Dartmouth Medical School, Kozul set out to determine the baseline level of arsenic in standard lab mouse chow. Hamilton's group had found that arsenic in drinking water disrupts hormones and can contribute to cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. In light of the US Environmental Protection Agency's decision to lower the federal limit for arsenic in drinking water from 50 parts per billion (ppb) to 10 ppb, Kozul wanted to study the effects of much smaller arsenic doses. There are no limits for arsenic levels in food, and trace amounts can be found in wine (made from grapes sprayed with arsenic-containing pesticides) or seafood (especially finned fish).

But to measure the effect of small doses of arsenic, Kozul first needed to know the arsenic baseline, or how much the animals encountered daily. Kozul started with the standard lab rodent chow—Purina LRD5001. To her surprise, it contained a whopping 360 ppb of arsenic—36 times more than the EPA recommended for drinking water. Total exposure depends on how much food and water the animals consume, of course, but the findings got Kozul thinking. "Can you imagine people looking at arsenic exposure and exposing their animals to 10 ppb when they're only looking at a change of 400–410 ppb? They won't be able to discern a difference," and their findings would suggest that low levels of arsenic had no effect.

To find out what effect this baseline exposure might have on gene expression, Kozul set up a new experiment: One group of mice ate the standard diet. A second group of mice were fed a purified, well-defined diet (with every ingredient accounted for and minimal variability between batches) from the American Society for Nutritional Sciences, which contained less than 20 ppb of arsenic.

"The diets are pretty much different by night and day," says David Robbins, a nutritionist at Harlan, the company that produces the purified diet. The purified diet contains refined, human-grade food, each formulation mixed by hand by nutritionists. Standard diets contain an assortment of ingredients, and sometimes animal proteins such as fishmeal, the likely source of arsenic. Kozul also found the standard chow contained cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, and zinc, at concentration levels ranging from 10 and 100 fold greater than the purified feed. The differences show in the cost: the purified diet can be 15 times more expensive than the standard.

Kozul did a microarray analysis of 20,000 mouse genes in the liver and lung of the two groups and found in some cases, a 40-fold higher level of gene expression in the mice on the standard diet, especially in genes involved in xenobiotic and glutathione metabolism. (Previous nutritional studies had shown the effect of diet on single genes or metabolism, specifically, never large-scale gene expression.) Kozul presented her results at the 2007 meeting, and published them last year (Chemico-Biologic Interact, 173:129–40, 2008). Purina declined to comment on the paper's findings.

"It was quite a convincing study; a little bit of a surprise at the magnitude of the things being observed," says Richard Brennan, director of toxicology at GeneGo, whose company analyzes gene expression and proteomics. "I thought 'wow, this really is important to know'." The study showed that the standard diet concealed the effects of increased arsenic levels in drinking water—effects that were clearly observable in the mice eating the purified diet. "You're masking the levels of the effects of low level exposure to a compound," adds Brennan.

Kozul now only orders a custom-formulated chow recipe for her mice, and she's uncovered some surprising effects of arsenic, even at concentrations of only 10ppb: In particular, gene expression is altered and some mice show an impaired immune response to infection.

Kozul's findings appear to have had an impact. At talks during the 2008 Society for Toxicology meeting, she noticed members of the audience asking speakers what type of chow their rodents were eating. "People will control for other factors and not really think of diet," says Kozul. "The type of diet you use affects the baseline, and the results you see," she says.


Avatar of: anonymous poster

anonymous poster

Posts: 1

March 4, 2009

This article makes me wonder about the ingredients in the Canidae dog chow that I use. How can I find out? Also, is this inferring that perhaps no commercial chow is safe, and I need to prepare home-made food for my dog?
Avatar of: john toeppen

john toeppen

Posts: 52

March 13, 2009

I wonder what level of heavy metals are in our food? Since the FDA has been out to lunch for at least eight years we have cause for concern.
Avatar of: anonymous poster

anonymous poster

Posts: 3

March 13, 2009

In a similar vein, I wrote to the makers of a popular silicone cat litter asking about feline and my own exposure to silicone dust particles over time and if it was food quality silicone since cats lick themselves. No response.
Avatar of: anonymous poster

anonymous poster

Posts: 12

March 13, 2009

I wonder if arsenic is high in wild mice food? Is this level of arsenic what their bodies consider "normal" and the purified chow is "abnormal" for their genome and physiology?
Avatar of: anonymous poster

anonymous poster

Posts: 3

March 13, 2009

Toxicities tend to have a lot in common from one compound to another.\n\nI wonder if this result could invalidate in part many of the studies showing thresholds for toxic effects manufacturers have found so convenient all these years.
Avatar of: tom hennessy

tom hennessy

Posts: 2

March 13, 2009

The chow fed to these animals contained .. meat.\nNow why would you feed meat to an animal that would not normally be eaten by that animal.\nHamster food mouse food rat food guinea pig feed all contain meat put out by this Harlan group.\nI don't know what kind of doctors or scientists they use in their formulation labs but they are stupid.\nYou do not feed meat to a herbivore or a frugivore.
Avatar of: Steven Anderson

Steven Anderson

Posts: 9

March 14, 2009

I have often wondered if rodent longevity studies were a measure not of calories consumed, but rat chow eaten. The less Purina chow one eats, the longer he/she lives. I had thought I was just being cynical, but now I really want to know.
Avatar of: Brian Lee

Brian Lee

Posts: 15

March 16, 2009

Differences between the standard lab chow and semi-purified rat diets have been showing up for decades, but the interest tends to run in cycles. The point of AIN-76 was to provide an alternate to the myriad of substances in the standard chows which sometimes yielded significant differences in the results.\n\nEventually AIN-76 was improved upon since it had too much sugar for the carbohydrate, and too much corn oil as the lipid. (The stuff tasted like cookie dough!)\n\nConventional wisdom says the human diet is more like the chow with respect to being mixed and varied. However, the levels of each nutrient in chow do not necessarily mirror the human diet. After all, lab chow is optimized for rat growth, not humans. (BTW, it's more like weird tasting, hard biscuits.)

Popular Now

  1. Running on Empty
    Features Running on Empty

    Regularly taking breaks from eating—for hours or days—can trigger changes both expected, such as in metabolic dynamics and inflammation, and surprising, as in immune system function and cancer progression.

  2. Athletes’ Microbiomes Differ from Nonathletes
  3. Mutation Linked to Longer Life Span in Men
  4. Immune Cells Deliver Cancer Drugs to the Brain