4.7 Article

Cervicovaginal microbiota significantly changed for HPV-positive women with high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.973875

关键词

cervicovaginal microbiota; Chinese women; HPV infection; low squamous intraepithelial lesion; high squamous intraepithelial lesion

资金

  1. Shenzhen High-level Hospital Construction Fund [YBH2019-260]
  2. Shenzhen Key Medical Discipline Construction Fund [SZXK027]
  3. Sanming Project of Medicine in Shenzhen [SZSM202011016]
  4. Scientific Research Foundation of Peking University Shenzhen Hospital [KYQD2021075]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The microbial community in the lower female genital tract is associated with the risk of genital infection. This study found significant changes in the microbial community when squamous intraepithelial lesion (SIL) developed into high-grade SIL (HSIL).
Lower female genital tract is colonized by a variety of microbes (cervicovaginal microbiota, CVM) which associate with the risk of genital infection. This study characterized CVM for 149 Chinese women with different status of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and squamous intraepithelial lesion (SIL): no HPV infection (HPV-), HPV infection without significant SIL (HPV+NoSIL), HPV infection with low-grade SIL (HPV+LSIL) and HPV infection with high-grade SIL (HPV+HSIL). Analysis results showed CVM has dramatically changed in HPV+HSIL group when compared to HPV+LSIL group, but it exhibited no significant differences between HPV- and HPV+NoSIL groups as well as between HPV+NoSIL and HPV+LSIL groups. In consistence, random forest analysis found more notable differences in HPV+HSIL vs HPV+LSIL comparison than in other comparisons. In addition, depletion of Lactobacillus in CVM was more to be frequently identified in SIL-positive women as compared to SIL-negative individuals. Our findings suggested that significant CVM differences occurred when SIL developed to HSIL which was caused by persistent HPV infection.

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

4.7
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