3.9 Article

The vaginal bacterial communities of Japanese women resemble those of women in other racial groups

期刊

FEMS IMMUNOLOGY AND MEDICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 58, 期 2, 页码 169-181

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-695X.2009.00618.x

关键词

vaginal microbiota; 16S rRNA genes; bacterial communities; Japanese women

资金

  1. National Center for Research Resources of the National Institutes of Health [P20RR16448, P20RR016454]
  2. Procter & Gamble Company, Cincinnati, OH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To determine whether different racial groups shared common types of vaginal microbiota, we characterized the composition and structure of vaginal bacterial communities in asymptomatic and apparently healthy Japanese women in Tokyo, Japan, and compared them with those of White and Black women from North America. The composition of vaginal communities was compared based on community profiles of terminal restriction fragments of 16S rRNA genes and phylogenetic analysis of cloned 16S rRNA gene sequences of the numerically dominant bacterial populations. The types of vaginal communities found in Japanese women were similar to those of Black and White women. As with White and Black women, most vaginal communities were dominated by lactobacilli, and only four species of Lactobacillus (Lactobacillus iners, Lactobacillus crispatus, Lactobacillus jensenii, and Lactobacillus gasseri) were commonly found. Communities dominated by multiple species of lactobacilli were common in Japanese and White women, but rare in Black women. The incidence, in Japanese women, of vaginal communities with several non-Lactobacillus species at moderately high frequencies was intermediate between Black women and White women. The limited number of community types found among women in different ethnic groups suggests that host genetic factors, including the innate and adaptive immune systems, may be more important in determining the species composition of vaginal bacterial communities than are cultural and behavioral differences.

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

3.9
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