4.6 Article

Comparative Analysis of Lower Genital Tract Microbiome Between PCOS and Healthy Women

Journal

FRONTIERS IN PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 11, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2020.01108

Keywords

Gardnerella; Lactobacillus; lower genital tract (LGT); microbiome; PCOS

Categories

Funding

  1. Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Research Unit [2019RU056]
  2. Shanghai Jiao Tong University, CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (CIFMS) [2019-I2M-5-064]
  3. National Key R&D Program of China [2017YFC1201200]
  4. Shanghai Municipal Key Clinical Specialty, Shanghai, China

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) often have a history of infertility and poor pregnancy outcome. The character of the lower genital tract (LGT) microbiome of these patients is still unknown. We collected both vaginal and cervical canal swabs from 47 PCOS patients (diagnosed by the Rotterdam Criteria) and 50 healthy reproductive-aged controls in this study. Variable regions 3-4 (V3-4) were sequenced and analyzed. Operational taxonomic unit (OTU) abundance was noted for all samples. Taxa that discriminated between PCOS and healthy women was calculated by linear discriminant analysis effect size (LEFSe). Results from 97 paired vaginal and cervical canal samples collected from 97 women [mean age 30 (+/- 4 years)] were available for analysis. Using the Rotterdam Criteria, 47 women were diagnosed with PCOS (PCOS,n= 47; control,n= 50). There was no significant difference between cervical canal microbiome and vaginal microbiome from the same individual, however,Lactobacillusspp. was less abundant in both vaginal and cervical canal microbiome of PCOS patients. Several non-Lactobacillustaxa includingGardnerella_vaginalis_00703mash,Prevotella_9_other, andMycoplasma hominis, were more abundant in the LGT microbiota of PCOS patients. There is a difference between the microorganism in the LGT of patients with PCOS and healthy reproductive-aged women.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available