. 2018 Sep 25;8:14336. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-32710-w

Table 1.

Effect of the FADS2 rs321384923 genotype on n6-fatty acid composition.

Trait	P-value^a	FADS2 ^b
Trait	P-value^a	AA	AG	GG
Backfat, mm	0.99	26.3 ± 0.4	26.3 ± 0.3	26.3 ± 0.2
IMF, % dry matter	0.10	18.0 ± 0.5	18.7 ± 0.3	19.1 ± 0.3
C18:2, %	0.13	10.06 ± 0.13	10.28 ± 0.07	10.33 ± 0.07
C20:2, % (x10)	<0.001	4.65 ± 0.07^a	4.85 ± 0.04^b	4.95 ± 0.04^b
C20:4, %	<0.001	1.62 ± 0.04^a	1.55 ± 0.02^a	1.44 ± 0.02^b
C20:4/C18:2 (x10)	<0.001	1.59 ± 0.03^a	1.52 ± 0.02^a	1.42 ± 0.02^b
C20:2/C18:2 (x100)	0.004	4.70 ± 0.04^a	4.77 ± 0.02^a	4.84 ± 0.02^b
C20:4/C20:2	<0.001	3.51 ± 0.07^a	3.25 ± 0.04^b	2.98 ± 0.04^c

As compared to the GG pigs, the AA pigs showed a higher content of arachidonic acid (C20:4) and a lower content of eicosadienoic acid (C20:2) in muscle because they were more efficient transforming linoleic acid (C18:2) into C20:4. Subcutaneous fat was measured in terms of backfat thickness and intramuscular fat was determined in gluteus medius muscle. The proportion of each fatty acid is expressed as a percentage relative to total fatty acid content and, as well as ratios, adjusted for intramuscular fat (IMF) content. ^aP-value associated with the effect of the FADS2 genotype; ^bPairwise comparisons of FADS2 genotypes. ^cWithin row, means with different superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05).