Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 434

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Determination of the Net Utilization of Proteins by a Shortened Method

Open access
Miller, D. S, Bender, A. E·1955·British Journal of Nutrition

Abstract

The various methods of measuring the nutritive value of proteins have been frequently reviewed (Chick, 1942;Mitchell, 1944;Allison, 1949).One of the more valuable of these is the measurement of the biological value by the balance-sheet procedure of Thomas (1909) and Mitchell (1923-4), although a considerable drawback to its use is the time and labour required.For example, with the technique described by Henry, Kon & Watson (1937) the examination of three proteins with twelve rats extends over 7 weeks and involves 120 nitrogen estimations on urine and faeces.A method is described here, whereby seven proteins can be tested simultaneously in 10 days, using thirty-two rats and involving no N estimations other than on the food.The method is based on the formula already discussed (Bender & Miller, 1953 a).In principle the values obtained are the same as those obtained by the Thomas-Mitchell procedure, being a measure of that proportion of the food N eaten retained by the test animals. EXPERIMENTAL Animals.Rats of our hooded strain were used in all the experiments.T h e animals were weaned at 21 days at a weight of about 35 g, and fed for I week on stock diet so that they weighed 50-60 g at the beginning of the experiment. Chemical analyses.Body water was determined after killing the rats with chloroform.Incisions were made into the skull, thoracic and body cavities, and the carcasses were dried to a constant weight at 105' (48 h).Intestinal contents were included.N was determined by the Kjeldahl method.Small rats, of less than 15 g dry weight, were completely digested with 10 ml.conc.H,SO,/g dry matter and 20 g catalyst (2 g SeO,, 2 g CuSO,.5H,O, 16 g K,SO,).T h e dried carcasses of the larger rats were pounded in a mortar and 10-15 g portions digested.The large size of the portions compensated for any lack of homogeneity as shown by the agreement between duplicate digestions.Samples of this size, especially those rich in fat, frequently froth violently during digestion, but this frothing was avoided by maintaining the digestion mixture at 120' for 2 h before strong heating.T h e digested material was finally diluted for the micro-estimation of ammonia (Markham, 1942).Diets.T h e basal non-protein diet was composed of 15% margarine fat, 10% potato starch, 15 yo glucose, 5 yo vitaminized carbohydrate mixture (see p. 383), 5 yo salt mixture (Hawk, Oser & Summerson, 1947) and 50% rice starch.The protein

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1079/bjn19550055

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 434

Metadata

Authors
Miller, D. S., & Bender, A. E.
Venue
British Journal of Nutrition
Published
1955-12
Volume
9
Issue
4
Pages
382-388
ISSN
  • 0007-1145 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2662
OpenAlex
W2168330522
Cited by
434
References
6
FWCI
34.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Determination of the Net Utilization of Proteins by a Shortened Method. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1079/bjn19550055
The paper
Miller, D. S., & Bender, A. E. (1955). The Determination of the Net Utilization of Proteins by a Shortened Method. British Journal of Nutrition. https://doi.org/10.1079/bjn19550055

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.