Skip to main content
. 2016 Sep 29;11(9):e0163972. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163972

Table 2. Quantitative comparison of class total lipid profiles in placenta.

Lipid Class (μmol/g tissue) Control (n = 68) PET (n = 23) IUGR (n = 10) P
TAG* 0.20 (0.11)1 0.27 (0.12)2 0.15 (0.05)1 0.001
CE* 0.31 (0.10)1 0.42 (0.16)2 0.28 (0.10)1 0.004
Cholesterol 2.9 (0.5)1 3.4 (0.8)2 3.2 (0.7)1,2 0.006
PC 3.2 (0.8)1 3.7 (1.1)2 3.5 (1.0)1,2 0.025
PE 0.93 (0.25) 1.07 (0.38) 1.01 (0.31) 0.169
PS 0.36 (0.09) 0.40 (0.10) 0.40 (0.13) 0.127
SM 0.71 (0.18) 0.82 (0.26) 0.88 (0.22) 0.014
Total PL 5.2 (1.2)1 6.0 (1.7)2 5.7 (1.6)1,2 0.029
Cer 0.06 (0.02) 0.06 (0.03) 0.06 (0.02) 0.605
Total Lipid 8.6 (1.7)1 10.1 (2.4)2 9.4 (2.4) 1,2 0.006

CE, cholesteryl ester; Cer, ceramides; IUGR, intrauterine growth restriction; PC, phosphatidylcholine; PE, phosphatidylethanolamine; PET, preeclampsia; PL, phospholipid; PS, phosphatidylserine; SM, sphingomyelin; TAG, triacylglycerol.

Values are mean (SD).

ANOVA was used to test for differences among groups (*on log transformed data). Different superscript numbers indicate differences between individual groups using post hoc Tukey test. Significance level P<0.05.