. 2011 Aug 4;10:131. doi: 10.1186/1476-511X-10-131

Table 5.

CLA isomers in cellular lipids of HT-29 treated with different milk lipids at 8 h

	Control				ML_con								ML_alp

	0.25% EtOH				100 μM				200 μM				100 μM				200 μM
CLA FAME [%]	Mean		SD		Mean		SD		Mean		SD		Mean		SD		Mean		SD

t12,t14	-				-				-				-				-
t11,t13	-				2.63	±	0.71	^a	2.76	±	0.26	^a	1.26	±	0.14	^b	1.31	±	0.06	^b
t10,t12	-				0.69	±	0.23	^a	0.82	±	0.09	^a	0.24	±	0.09	^b	0.26	±	0.09	^b
t9,t11	3.15	±	1.28	^a	3.08	±	0.49	^a	3.35	±	0.51	^a	1.18	±	0.35	^b	1.14	±	0.34	^b
t8,t10	-				0.28	±	0.15	^ab	0.47	±	0.16	^a	0.02	±	0.01	^bc	0.11	±	0.02	^bc
t7,t9	2.86	±	0.79	^a	0.89	±	0.28	^b	0.73	±	0.08	^b	0.09	±	0.05	^b	0.05	±	0.01	^b
∑ trans, trans	6.02	±	2.06	^bc	8.38	±	1.19	^ab	9.68	±	0.30	^a	3.48	±	0.53	^c	3.57	±	0.50	^c
t11,c13	4.88	±	3.15	^ab	3.59	±	1.20	^ab	1.81	±	0.30	^b	6.54	±	0.47	^a	6.83	±	0.34	^a
c11,t13	3.00	±	1.89	^a	1.80	±	0.93	^ab	1.17	±	0.25	^ab	0.31	±	0.06	^b	0.36	±	0.10	^b
t10,c12	3.82	±	1.39	^a	3.48	±	1.11	^b	1.61	±	0.75	^ab	0.42	±	0.27	^b	0.22	±	0.15	^b
c9,t11	77.28	±	3.25	^b	74.65	±	0.80	^a	76.12	±	0.98	^b	86.66	±	1.17	^a	87.14	±	0.80	^a
t8,c10	0.63	±	0.45	^ab	0.78	±	0.58	^ab	1.20	±	0.25	^a	0.44	±	0.10	^ab	0.18	±	0.10	^b
t7,c9	4.38	±	1.55	^bc	6.09	±	1.58	^cd	7.18	±	0.55	^a	1.82	±	0.20	^cd	1.44	±	0.11	^d
∑ cis,trans/trans,cis	93.98	±	2.06	^a	90.39	±	1.23	^b	89.09	±	0.38	^b	96.19	±	0.61	^a	96.17	±	0.59	^a
c11,c13	-				-				-				0.08	±	0.02		0.03	±	0.00
c10,c12	-				-				-				-				-
c9,c11	-				1.23	±	0.10	^a	1.18	±	0.09	^a	0.26	±	0.08	^b	0.23	±	0.09	^b
c8,c10	-				-				-				-				-
∑ cis/cis	-				1.23	±	0.10	^a	1.18	±	0.09	^a	0.34	±	0.09	^b	0.26	±	0.09	^b
t11,c13/t7,c9	1.33	±	1.25	^b	0.64	±	0.34	^b	0.25	±	0.06	^b	3.63	±	0.46	^a	4.77	±	0.55	^a

CLA distribution of HT-29 cells after incubation with milk lipids (ML conventional and ML Alpine) given as FFA-mixtures in ethanol. Means (n = 6) of FAME [%] significantly differ without the same letter ^{(a, b, c, d)}, two-way ANOVA Tukey post hoc test P < 0.05.