Table 2.

Phospholipid distribution of control and uninfected human erythrocyte ghosts



NRBCs

URBCs

Young
Medium
Old
Young
Medium
Old
PE   29.1 ± 0.5   30.0 ± 0.3   28.2 ± 0.6   29.2 ± 0.9   30.0 ± 0.7   30.0 ± 1.3  
PS + PI   14.0 ± 0.2   11.4 ± 0.5*  10.1 ± 0.3*  11.1 ± 0.3  9.7 ± 0.2*  7.0 ± 0.4* 
PC   31.4 ± 0.8   32.9 ± 0.5§  34.4 ± 1.2*  30.6 ± 1.0   32.9 ± 1.3   34.2 ± 0.5§ 
SM
 
25.5 ± 0.3
 
25.7 ± 0.8
 
27.3 ± 0.4§
 
29.1 ± 0.4
 
27.4 ± 0.9
 
28.8 ± 0.6
 


NRBCs

URBCs

Young
Medium
Old
Young
Medium
Old
PE   29.1 ± 0.5   30.0 ± 0.3   28.2 ± 0.6   29.2 ± 0.9   30.0 ± 0.7   30.0 ± 1.3  
PS + PI   14.0 ± 0.2   11.4 ± 0.5*  10.1 ± 0.3*  11.1 ± 0.3  9.7 ± 0.2*  7.0 ± 0.4* 
PC   31.4 ± 0.8   32.9 ± 0.5§  34.4 ± 1.2*  30.6 ± 1.0   32.9 ± 1.3   34.2 ± 0.5§ 
SM
 
25.5 ± 0.3
 
25.7 ± 0.8
 
27.3 ± 0.4§
 
29.1 ± 0.4
 
27.4 ± 0.9
 
28.8 ± 0.6
 

Lipids were extracted from erythrocyte ghosts, and PLs were purified from other lipid components as described in “Material and methods.” Individual PL species were separated by HPTLC and quantified by densitometric analysis. PE indicates phosphatidylethanolamine; PS, phosphatidylserine; PI, phosphatidylinositol; PC, phosphatidylcholine; and SM, sphingomyelin

Results represent the percentage of total PLs, and are the mean (± SD) of 3 to 6 determinations made in duplicate

Data were compared by using the 2-sample independent t test for within group comparisons (versus young RBCs), and the paired t test for between-group comparisons (cells of the same age)

*

P < .01 versus young RBCs of the same group

P < .01 versus NRBCs of the same age

P < .05 versus NRBCs of the same age

§

P < .05 versus young RBCs of the same group

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal