OBMS: BX795 custom synthesis obesity with metabolic syndrome; OB: obesity; AW: Appropriate weight; SFA: saturated fatty acid; MUFA: monounsaturated fatty acid; PUFA: polyunsaturated fatty acid; FFA: free fatty acid; DHGL: Dihomo-gamma-linolenic; DHA: docosahexaenoic acid; * ANOVA; Kruskal-Wallis test; 1 Data expressed as Averagesstandard deviations or medians (buy alpha-Amanitin interquartile ranges); 2 Different letters between lines show significant differences between groups, according to the Scheff?post-test for parametric variables or the Mann hitney U test for nonparametric variables; 3 OBMS n = 28, OB n = 20, AW n = 16; 4 OBMS n = 28 OB n = 25, AW n = 8; 5 OBMS n = 15, OB n = 13, AW n = 6; 6 OBMS n = 15, OB n = 13, AW n = 6; 7 OBMS n = 27, OB n = 19; AW n = 8.Nutrients 2016, 8,7 ofIn the PL fraction, total SFAs were present in significantly lower amounts in the OBMS group compared to the AW group. The OBMS group had higher total MUFAs compared to the other two groups (p = 0.001), with no difference between the OB and AW groups (p = 0.05). In particular, palmitoleic-16:1n-7 was higher in OBMS compared to the other two groups (p = 0.001), and time was higher in OB than AW (p = 0.004). With respect to linoleic-18:2n-6, a significantly lower proportion was found in the OBMS and the OB group compared to the AW group (p = 0.001, p = 0.021, respectively). DHGL-20:3n-6 had a significantly higher proportion in the OBMS group compared to the AW group (p = 0.001), with no differences between OB and AW (p = 0.079) (Table 3). In the PL fraction, palmitoleic-16:1n-7 was directly associated with serum TG (Rho = 0.54 p = 0.001) and inversely associated with HDL-C (Rho = ?.43 p = 0.001). DHGL-20:3n-6 correlated directly with the HOMA (Rho = 0.36 p = 0.000) and serum TG (Rho = 0.33 p = 0.001), while linoleic-18:2n-6 correlated inversely with the HOMA (Rho = ?.31 p = 0.002) and serum TG (Rho = ?.29 p = 0.004) and directly with HDL-C (Rho = 0.30 p = 0.003) (Table S1). In the FFA fraction, total circulating FFAs were significantly greater in the OBMS group, with double the concentration compared to the other groups (p = 0.014). The OB group had the same concentration of total FFAs as the AW group (Table 3). Among PUFAs, DHGL-20:3n-6 was significantly higher in the OBMS group than in the AW group (p = 0.001); with no differences between OB and AW. The DHGL-20:3n-6/linoleic-18:2n-6 ratio was significantly greater in the OBMS and OB groups compared to the AW group (p = 0.001) (Table 4). DHGL-20:3n-6 correlated directly with the HOMA (Rho = 0.36 p = 0.001) and TG (Rho = 0.33 p = 0.001) (Table S1).Table 4. Ratios of fatty acids in lipid fractions of youth according to the study groups 1 . Ratio of Fatty Acids OBSM n =a,OB n = 32 TriglyceridesAW n = 32 0.1 (0.1) b 4.4 1.8 0.01 (0.01) c 0.6 (0.2) b 0.1 (0.0) c 2.3 (1.4)p *,16:1/16:0 18:1/18:0.1 (0.1) 5.1 1.0.1 (0.2) 4.4 1.9 Phospholipids 0.02 (0.01) b 0.7 (0.7) 0.1 (0.0) b 2.0 (1.2) Cholesterol Esters0.005 0.30 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0,16:1n-7/16:0 18:1n-9/18:0 20:3n-6/18:2n-6 20:4n6/20:3n6 18:1n-9/18:0 5 16:1/16:0 6 18:1n-9/18:0 20:3n-6/18:2n-6 20:4n6/20:3n0.03 (0.01) 0.8 (0.7) a 0.2 (0.1) a 1.9 (0.7)a2.3 (2.6)2.4 (1.7) Free Fatty Acids2.1 (1.6)0.94 * 0.57 0.47 <0.001 * 0.0.5 (0.0) 1.3 (0.4) 0.1 0.0 a 2.2 (0.8)0.6 (0.0) 1.2 (0.4) 0.1 0.0 a 2.3 (0.8)0.5 (0.0) 1.3 (0.4) 0.1 0.0 b 2.5 (1.5)OBMS: obesity with metabolic syndrome; OB: obesity; AW: Appropriate weight; * ANOVA; Kruskal-Wallis test; 1 Data expressed as Averagesstandard deviati.OBMS: obesity with metabolic syndrome; OB: obesity; AW: Appropriate weight; SFA: saturated fatty acid; MUFA: monounsaturated fatty acid; PUFA: polyunsaturated fatty acid; FFA: free fatty acid; DHGL: Dihomo-gamma-linolenic; DHA: docosahexaenoic acid; * ANOVA; Kruskal-Wallis test; 1 Data expressed as Averagesstandard deviations or medians (interquartile ranges); 2 Different letters between lines show significant differences between groups, according to the Scheff?post-test for parametric variables or the Mann hitney U test for nonparametric variables; 3 OBMS n = 28, OB n = 20, AW n = 16; 4 OBMS n = 28 OB n = 25, AW n = 8; 5 OBMS n = 15, OB n = 13, AW n = 6; 6 OBMS n = 15, OB n = 13, AW n = 6; 7 OBMS n = 27, OB n = 19; AW n = 8.Nutrients 2016, 8,7 ofIn the PL fraction, total SFAs were present in significantly lower amounts in the OBMS group compared to the AW group. The OBMS group had higher total MUFAs compared to the other two groups (p = 0.001), with no difference between the OB and AW groups (p = 0.05). In particular, palmitoleic-16:1n-7 was higher in OBMS compared to the other two groups (p = 0.001), and time was higher in OB than AW (p = 0.004). With respect to linoleic-18:2n-6, a significantly lower proportion was found in the OBMS and the OB group compared to the AW group (p = 0.001, p = 0.021, respectively). DHGL-20:3n-6 had a significantly higher proportion in the OBMS group compared to the AW group (p = 0.001), with no differences between OB and AW (p = 0.079) (Table 3). In the PL fraction, palmitoleic-16:1n-7 was directly associated with serum TG (Rho = 0.54 p = 0.001) and inversely associated with HDL-C (Rho = ?.43 p = 0.001). DHGL-20:3n-6 correlated directly with the HOMA (Rho = 0.36 p = 0.000) and serum TG (Rho = 0.33 p = 0.001), while linoleic-18:2n-6 correlated inversely with the HOMA (Rho = ?.31 p = 0.002) and serum TG (Rho = ?.29 p = 0.004) and directly with HDL-C (Rho = 0.30 p = 0.003) (Table S1). In the FFA fraction, total circulating FFAs were significantly greater in the OBMS group, with double the concentration compared to the other groups (p = 0.014). The OB group had the same concentration of total FFAs as the AW group (Table 3). Among PUFAs, DHGL-20:3n-6 was significantly higher in the OBMS group than in the AW group (p = 0.001); with no differences between OB and AW. The DHGL-20:3n-6/linoleic-18:2n-6 ratio was significantly greater in the OBMS and OB groups compared to the AW group (p = 0.001) (Table 4). DHGL-20:3n-6 correlated directly with the HOMA (Rho = 0.36 p = 0.001) and TG (Rho = 0.33 p = 0.001) (Table S1).Table 4. Ratios of fatty acids in lipid fractions of youth according to the study groups 1 . Ratio of Fatty Acids OBSM n =a,OB n = 32 TriglyceridesAW n = 32 0.1 (0.1) b 4.4 1.8 0.01 (0.01) c 0.6 (0.2) b 0.1 (0.0) c 2.3 (1.4)p *,16:1/16:0 18:1/18:0.1 (0.1) 5.1 1.0.1 (0.2) 4.4 1.9 Phospholipids 0.02 (0.01) b 0.7 (0.7) 0.1 (0.0) b 2.0 (1.2) Cholesterol Esters0.005 0.30 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0,16:1n-7/16:0 18:1n-9/18:0 20:3n-6/18:2n-6 20:4n6/20:3n6 18:1n-9/18:0 5 16:1/16:0 6 18:1n-9/18:0 20:3n-6/18:2n-6 20:4n6/20:3n0.03 (0.01) 0.8 (0.7) a 0.2 (0.1) a 1.9 (0.7)a2.3 (2.6)2.4 (1.7) Free Fatty Acids2.1 (1.6)0.94 * 0.57 0.47 <0.001 * 0.0.5 (0.0) 1.3 (0.4) 0.1 0.0 a 2.2 (0.8)0.6 (0.0) 1.2 (0.4) 0.1 0.0 a 2.3 (0.8)0.5 (0.0) 1.3 (0.4) 0.1 0.0 b 2.5 (1.5)OBMS: obesity with metabolic syndrome; OB: obesity; AW: Appropriate weight; * ANOVA; Kruskal-Wallis test; 1 Data expressed as Averagesstandard deviati.
