4.3 Review

Host-vaginal microbiota interactions in the pathogenesis of bacterial vaginosis

期刊

CURRENT OPINION IN INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 33, 期 1, 页码 59-65

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/QCO.0000000000000620

关键词

Atopobium vaginae; bacterial vaginosis; biofilm; Gardnerella vaginalis; host-immune response; Prevotella bivia; Sneathiaspecies

资金

  1. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) [K23AI106957-01A1]
  2. NIAID [U19AI113212-01A1, U01AI108509, HHSN 27200011]
  3. National Cancer Institute [P30CA023074, 2U54CA143924-11]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose of review The cause of bacterial vaginosis, the most common cause of vaginal discharge in women, remains controversial. We recently published an updated conceptual model on bacterial vaginosis pathogenesis, focusing on the roles ofGardnerella vaginalisandPrevotella biviaas early colonizers andAtopobium vaginaeand other bacterial vaginosis-associated bacteria (BVAB) as secondary colonizers in this infection. In this article, we extend the description of our model to include a discussion on the role of host-vaginal microbiota interactions in bacterial vaginosis pathogenesis. Recent findings AlthoughG. vaginalisandP. biviaare highly abundant in women with bacterial vaginosis, neither induce a robust inflammatory response from vaginal epithelial cells. These early colonizers may be evading the immune system while establishing the bacterial vaginosis biofilm. Secondary colonizers, includingA. vaginae,Sneathiaspp., and potentially other BVAB are more potent stimulators of the host-immune response to bacterial vaginosis and likely contribute to its signs and symptoms as well as its adverse outcomes. Elucidating the cause of bacterial vaginosis has important implications for diagnosis and treatment. Our current bacterial vaginosis pathogenesis model provides a framework for key elements that should be considered when designing and testing novel bacterial vaginosis diagnostics and therapeutics.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据