Ray M. alfredi (n = 21) [minor fatty acids (B1 ) will not be shown] R. typus Mean ( EM) P SFA 16:0 17:0 i18:0 18:0 P MUFA 16:1n-7c 17:1n-8ca 18:1n-9c 18:1n-7c 20:1n-9c 24:1n-9c P PUFA P n-3 20:5n-3 (EPA) 22:6n-3 (DHA) 22:5n-3 P n-6 20:4n-6 (AA) 22:5n-6 22:4n-6 n-3/n-6 39.1 (0.7) 13.eight (0.5) 1.six (0.1) 1.1 (0.1) 17.eight (0.5) 31.0 (0.9) two.1 (0.three) 1.eight (0.3) 16.7 (0.7) 4.6 (0.5) 0.7 (0.02) 1.9 (0.1) 29.9 (0.9) 6.1 (0.three) 1.1 (0.1) 2.five (0.two) two.1 (0.1) 23.8 (0.8) 16.9 (0.six) 0.9 (0.1) 5.five (0.3) 0.three (0.02) M. alfredi Mean ( EM) 35.1 (0.7) 14.7 (0.4) 0 0.three (0.1) 16.eight (0.four) 29.9 (0.7) 2.7 (0.3) 0.7 (0.1) 15.7 (0.4) 6.1 (0.2) 1.0 (0.03) 1.1 (0.1) 34.9 (1.two) 13.four (0.six) 1.two (0.1) 10.0 (0.five) 2.0 (0.1) 21.0 (1.4) 11.7 (0.8) 3.three (0.3) five.1 (0.5) 0.7 (0.1)WE TAG FFA ST PL Total lipid content (mg g-1)Total lipid content is expressed as mg g-1 of tissue wet mass WE wax esters, TAG triacylglycerols, FFA free of charge fatty acids, ST sterols (comprising mostly cholesterol), PL phospholipidsArachidonic acid (AA; 20:4n-6) was the most abundant FA in R. typus (16.9 ) whereas 18:0 was most abundant in M. alfredi (16.8 ). Each species had a fairly low level of EPA (1.1 and 1.two ) and M. alfredi had a reasonably high amount of DHA (ten.0 ) compared to R. typus (two.5 ). Fatty acid signatures of R. typus and M. alfredi have been Adenosine A2B receptor (A2BR) Source distinctive to expected profiles of species that feed predominantly on crustacean zooplankton, which are usually dominated by n-3 PUFA and have high levels of EPA and/or DHA [8, 10, 11]. Rather, profiles of each big elasmobranchs have been dominated by n-6 PUFA ([20 total FA), with an n-3/n-6 ratio \1 and markedly higher levels of AA (Table two). The FA profiles of M. alfredi have been broadly similar in between the two areas, despite the fact that some variations were observed that are most likely as a consequence of dietary differences. Future analysis should aim to appear additional closely at these differences and possible dietary contributions. The n-6-dominated FA profiles are rare among marine fishes. Most other massive pelagic animals as well as other marine planktivores have an n-3-dominated FA profile and no other chondrichthyes investigated to date has an n-3/n-6 ratio \1 [14?6] (Table 3, literature data are expressed as wt ). The only other pelagic planktivore using a similar n-3/n-6 ratio (i.e. 0.9) is the leatherback turtle, that feeds on gelatinous zooplankton [17]. Only several other marine species, including many species of dolphins [18], benthic echinoderms and also the bottom-dwelling rabbitfish Siganus nebulosus [19], have somewhat high levels of AA, MMP-1 Compound related to these discovered in whale sharks and reef manta rays (Table 3). The trophic pathway for n-6-dominated FA profiles inside the marine environment just isn’t completely understood. While most animal species can, to some extent, convert linoleic acid (LA, 18:2n-6) to AA [8], only traces of LA (\1 ) were present within the two filter-feeders here. Only marineSFA saturated fatty acids, MUFA monounsaturated fatty acids, PUFA polyunsaturated fatty acids, EPA eicosapentaenoic acid, DHA docosahexaenoic acid, AA arachidonic acidaIncludes a17:0 coelutingplant species are capable of biosynthesising long-chain n-3 and n-6 PUFA de novo, as most animals do not possess the enzymes essential to make these LC-PUFA [8, 9]. These findings recommend that the origin of AA in R. typus and M. alfredi is probably directly associated to their diet plan. Even though FA are selectively incorporated into unique elasmobranch tissues, little is recognized on which tissue would greatest reflect the die.
