Table 2.
Effects of ELF-EMF and RS exposure on FAMEs in brain regions
| Relative abundance | % Eicosatetraenoic (20:4) | % Docosahexaenoic (22:6) | % Docosatetraenoic (22:4) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cortex | |||
| C | 4.9 ± 1.2 | 2.2 ± 1.1 | 0.8 ± 0.4 |
| RS | 1.9 ± 1.0* | 0.7 ± 0.1* | 0.5 ± 0.3 |
| ELF-EMF | 2.7 ± 1.4* | 0.8 ± 0.5* | 0.3 ± 0.2* |
| RS + ELF-EMF | 5.4 ± 0.8# | 2.8 ± 0.8# | 0.7 ± 0.2 |
| Cerebellum | |||
| C | 2.8 ± 0.8 | 1.5 ± 0.8 | 0.3 ± 0.2 |
| RS | 1.9 ± 0.7 | 0.8 ± 0.5 | ND |
| ELF-EMF | 1.3 ± 0.6* | 0.6 ± 0.4* | ND |
| RS + ELF-EMF | 1.3 ± 0.5* | 0.3 ± 0.2* | ND |
| Subcortical | |||
| C | 4.8 ± 0.7 | 2.5 ± 0.5 | 0.8 ± 0.2 |
| RS | 3.1 ± 1.5& | 1.5 ± 0.9& | 0.4 ± 0.3& |
| ELF-EMF | 6.5 ± 0.6* | 4.1 ± 1.3* | 1.5 ± 0.5* |
| RS + ELF-EMF | 4.4 ± 1.0& | 2.4 ± 0.8& | 0.6 ± 0.3& |
Octadecenoic (18:1) and eicosaenoic (20:1) acids were found in all regions, average 20–30 and 0.8–2%, respectively, without differences versus control group. Results are expressed as mean ± SD of 6 animals in each group (*p < 0.05 vs. control group, &p < 0.05 vs. ELF-EMF group, and #p < 0.05 vs. RS and EMF groups)
ND no detected