Lipidome profiles of postnatal day 2 vaginal swabs reflect fat composition of gilt’s postnatal diet

KaLynn Harlow; Christina R. Ferreira; Tiago J.P. Sobreira; Theresa Casey; Kara Stewart

Effect of postnatal diet on vaginal lipid profiles. 290 The discovery phase identified a total of 1486 unique MRMs in pooled isolates from vaginal 291 swabs. Glycerolipids with saturated bonds encompassed 37% of identified lipids ( Figure 1A ; 292 Supplemental Table S2 ). Glycerolipids with unsaturated bonds were next in abundance with 25% Table S2 ). Screening Phase I 296 analysis found 146 MRMs (Supplemental Table S3 ) that best discriminated between suckled and 297 bottle-fed vaginal lipids, and 197 MRMs (Supplemental Table S4 ) that best discriminated 298 between vaginal lipids of gilts with and without fat supplementation. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not peer-reviewed) is the author/funder. It . https://doi.org/10.1101/593392 doi: bioRxiv preprint list of Method 1 ion pairs (27%). The 20 most discriminating lipids recovered from the vaginal 311 swabs showed a greater relative abundance in most bottle-fed versus suckled gilts ( Figure 2B ). Table 1 ). The correlation coefficient between twelve 330 MRMs in swab and milk samples was highly significant (r > 0.60 and P < 0.01), and included: The high correlation of MRM intensities between nutrition source and swab were primarily driven 365 by lipids that were significantly more abundant in milk replacer than colostrum samples. These The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not peer-reviewed) is the author/funder. It . https://doi.org/10.1101/593392 doi: bioRxiv preprint 379 available products continue to be markedly different from breast milk in their lipid composition; 380 these differences might be of importance for infant health, development and long-term fertility The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not peer-reviewed) is the author/funder. It . https://doi.org/10.1101/593392 doi: bioRxiv preprint The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not peer-reviewed) is the author/funder. It . https://doi.org/10.1101/593392 doi: bioRxiv preprint