+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Comparison of Free Amino Acids in Aqueous Humor of Farmed and Wild Salmon and of Six Species Additionally

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          Objective: A comparative study was performed in order to identify aqueous humor amino acids possibly involved in cataract formation in farmed Atlantic salmon. Methods: Aqueous humor amino acids from farmed salmons with and without cataract were compared with levels in wild salmon and other animals of different evolutionary levels such as frog, crocodile, turkey, goose, minke whale, and cattle. Serum samples from wild and farmed salmon and minke whale were also analyzed. Results: The total amino acid concentration was lower in aqueous humor obtained from salmon, frog and crocodile compared to birds and mammals. Wild salmon had a higher content of amino acids than farmed salmon. Asparagine was absent in salmon aqueous humor and serum. Aqueous humor proline was readily detectable in wild salmon, birds, whale, and cattle, but not detectable in farmed salmon, frog and crocodile. The aqueous humor concentration of taurine was about seven- and fifty-fold lower compared to serum in wild and farmed salmon, respectively. The corresponding ratio in minke whale was 1:2. Conclusions: The results indicate a blood- aqueous barrier for taurine in farmed salmon. The lower total amino acid concentration and low aqueous humor proline concentration in farmed salmon should be further investigated.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Ophthalmic Res
          Ophthalmic Research
          S. Karger AG
          December 2002
          23 December 2002
          : 34
          : 6
          : 366-370
          aThe Norwegian Centre for Health Technology Assessment, SINTEF Unimed, bDepartment of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, cInstitute of Clinical Biochemistry and dEye Department, Rikshospitalet University Hospital, University of Oslo, Norway
          67041 Ophthalmic Res 2002;34:366–370
          © 2002 S. Karger AG, Basel

          Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

          Page count
          Tables: 2, References: 14, Pages: 5
          Original Paper


          Comment on this article