Table 4.
Compound name | C-4d | HFD-4d | P407-4d | C-30d | HFD-30d | P407-30d | 2-way ANOVA (I) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
p | p (Corr) | ||||||||
Lyso-PE | (20:4) | −0.33 ± 0.05a | 0.04 ± 0.06bc | 0.12 ± 0.11bc | −0.18 ± 0.08ac | 0.18 ± 0.08b | 0.32 ± 0.10b | <0.001 | <0.001 |
(18:2) | −0.17 ± 0.08a | −0.06 ± 0.03ac | 0.28 ± 0.12bc | −0.19 ± 0.10a | −0.02 ± 0.09ac | 0.43 ± 0.14b | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
(18:3) | −0.10 ± 0.18a | −0.22 ± 0.09a | 0.36 ± 0.17ab | −0.23 ± 0.19a | −0.30 ± 0.14a | 0.72 ± 0.19b | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
(22:6) | −0.43 ± 0.10a | −0.08 ± 0.10ab | 0.05 ± 0.17ab | 0.10 ± 0.11b | −0.01 ± 0.08ab | 0.81 ± 0.11c | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
(16:1) | −0.26 ± 0.26a | −0.25 ± 0.13a | 0.13 ± 0.24ab | 0.23 ± 0.17ab | −0.20 ± 0.14a | 0.95 ± 0.21b | 0.001 | 0.02 | |
(16:0) | −0.14 ± 0.11a | −0.13 ± 0.09a | 0.00 ± 0.21ab | 0.06 ± 0.17ab | −0.34 ± 0.20a | 0.67 ± 0.18b | 0.005 | 0.09 | |
Lyso-PC | (20:2) | −0.60 ± 0.17a | 0.24 ± 0.10bc | −0.58 ± 0.22a | −0.09 ± 0.19ac | 0.75 0.19b | −0.16 ± 0.21ac | <0.001 | <0.001 |
(20:1) | −0.08 ± 0.16 | 0.35 ± 0.10 | −0.37 ± 0.22 | −0.30 ± 0.12 | 0.27 ± 0.24 | −0.29 ± 0.21 | 0.003 | 0.08 |
The levels of each metabolite were transformed to a base-2 logarithm, normalized to the internal standard and to the mean levels of the C-4d samples. The data are presented as the means of the normalized abundances ± SEM (n = 9–10). The two-way ANOVA cut-off point was calculated using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction to avoid false positives. The p-values for the main factor ‘intervention’ without (p) and with correction (p(Corr)) are shown. I: the effect of the pro-dyslipidemic intervention (HFD and P407 administration). When one-way ANOVA was also significant (p < 0.05), the post hoc analysis was used. In each row of the table, different superscript lowercase letters (a,b,c) indicate significant different mean values (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05).