The DOI matches its Crossref record; 263 of the 263 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Does the human placenta delivered at term have a microbiota? Results of cultivation, quantitative real-time PCR, 16S rRNA gene sequencing, and metagenomics
Open accessAbstract
Background The human placenta has been traditionally viewed as sterile, and microbial invasion of this organ has been associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Yet, recent studies that utilized sequencing techniques reported that the human placenta at term contains a unique microbiota. These conclusions are largely based on the results derived from the sequencing of placental samples. However, such an approach carries the risk of capturing background‐contaminating DNA (from DNA extraction kits, polymerase chain reaction reagents, and laboratory environments) when low microbial biomass samples are studied. Objective To determine whether the human placenta delivered at term in patients without labor who undergo cesarean delivery harbors a resident microbiota (“the assemblage of microorganisms present in a defined niche or environment”). Study Design This cross‐sectional study included placentas from 29 women who had a cesarean delivery without labor at term. The study also included technical controls to account for potential background‐contaminating DNA, inclusive in DNA extraction kits, polymerase chain reaction reagents, and laboratory environments. Bacterial profiles of placental tissues and background technical controls were characterized and compared with the use of bacterial culture, quantitative real‐time polymerase chain reaction, 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequencing, and metagenomic surveys. Results (1) Twenty‐eight of 29 placental tissues had a negative culture for microorganisms. The microorganisms retrieved by culture from the remaining sample were likely contaminants because corresponding 16S ribosomal RNA genes were not detected in the same sample. (2) Quantitative real‐time polymerase chain reaction did not indicate greater abundances of bacterial 16S ribosomal RNA genes in placental tissues than in technical controls. Therefore, there was no evidence of the presence of microorganisms above background contamination from reagents in the placentas. (3) 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequencing did not reveal consistent differences in the composition or structure of bacterial profiles between placental samples and background technical controls. (4) Most of the bacterial sequences obtained from metagenomic surveys of placental tissues were from cyanobacteria, aquatic bacteria, or plant pathogens, which are microbes unlikely to populate the human placenta. Coprobacillus, which constituted 30.5% of the bacterial sequences obtained through metagenomic sequencing of placental samples, was not identified in any of the 16S ribosomal RNA gene surveys of these samples. These observations cast doubt as to whether this organism is really present in the placenta of patients at term not in labor. Conclusion With the use of multiple modes of microbiologic inquiry, a resident microbiota could not be identified in human placentas delivered at term from women without labor. A consistently significant difference in the abundance and/or presence of a microbiota between placental tissue and background technical controls could not be found. All cultures of placental tissue, except 1, did not yield bacteria. Incorporating technical controls for potential sources of background‐contaminating DNA for studies of low microbial biomass samples, such as the placenta, is necessary to derive reliable conclusions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
1 retracted
Pfleiderer, A., Lagier, J., Armougom, F., Robert, C., Vialettes, B., & Raoult, D. (2013) · European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1007/s10096-013-1900-2 · Cited by 158
RetractedGapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs
Altschul, S. (1997) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/25.17.3389 · Cited by 73,302
The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools
Quast, C., Pruesse, E., Yilmaz, P., Gerken, J., Schweer, T., Yarza, P., Peplies, J., & Glöckner, F. O. (2012) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gks1219 · Cited by 33,055
Schloss, P. D., Westcott, S. L., Ryabin, T., Hall, J. R., Hartmann, M., Hollister, E. B., Lesniewski, R. A., Oakley, B. B., Parks, D. H., Robinson, C. J., et al. (2009) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.01541-09 · Cited by 19,549
PAST: PALEONTOLOGICAL STATISTICAL SOFTWARE PACKAGE FOR EDUCATION AND DATA ANALYSIS
Hammer, Ø., Harper, D. A. T., & Ryan, P. D. (2001) · Palaeontologia Electronica · Cited by 17,871
Metagenomic biomarker discovery and explanation
Segata, N., Izard, J., Waldron, L., Gevers, D., Miropolsky, L., Garrett, W. S., & Huttenhower, C. (2011) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/gb-2011-12-6-r60 · Cited by 16,192
UCHIME improves sensitivity and speed of chimera detection
Edgar, R. C., Haas, B. J., Clemente, J. C., Quince, C., & Knight, R. (2011) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btr381 · Cited by 15,114
A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance
Anderson, M. J. (2001) · Austral Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.2001.01070.pp.x · Cited by 13,828
16S ribosomal DNA amplification for phylogenetic study
Weisburg, W. G., Barns, S. M., Pelletier, D. A., & Lane, D. J. (1991) · Journal of Bacteriology · doi:10.1128/jb.173.2.697-703.1991 · Cited by 11,934
Structure, function and diversity of the healthy human microbiome
The Human Microbiome Project Consortium (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11234 · Cited by 11,726
Cited by
Cryan, J. F., O'Riordan, K. J., Cowan, C. S. M., Sandhu, K. V., Bastiaanssen, T. F. S., Boehme, M., Codagnone, M. G., Cussotto, S., Fulling, C., Golubeva, A. V., et al. (2019) · Physiological Reviews · doi:10.1152/physrev.00018.2018 · Cited by 5,286
Human placenta has no microbiome but can contain potential pathogens
de Goffau, M. C., Lager, S., Sovio, U., Gaccioli, F., Cook, E., Peacock, S. J., Parkhill, J., Charnock-Jones, D. S., & Smith, G. C. S. (2019) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1451-5 · Cited by 691
The human virome: assembly, composition and host interactions
Liang, G., & Bushman, F. D. (2021) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/s41579-021-00536-5 · Cited by 624
The Not-so-Sterile Womb: Evidence That the Human Fetus Is Exposed to Bacteria Prior to Birth
Stinson, L. F., Boyce, M. C., Payne, M. S., & Keelan, J. A. (2019) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2019.01124 · Cited by 389
Deep microbial analysis of multiple placentas shows no evidence for a placental microbiome
Kuperman, A., Zimmerman, A., Hamadia, S., Ziv, O., Gurevich, V, Fichtman, B., Gavert, N., Straussman, R., Rechnitzer, H., Barzilay, M., et al. (2020) · BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/1471-0528.15896 · Cited by 143
Metadata
- Authors
- Theis, K. R., Romero, R., Winters, A. D., Greenberg, J. M., Gomez-Lopez, N., Alhousseini, A., Bieda, J., Maymon, E., Pacora, P., Fettweis, J. M., Buck, G. A., Jefferson, K. K., Strauss, J. F., Erez, O., & Hassan, S. S.
- Venue
- American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-03
- Volume
- 220
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 267.e1-267.e39
- ISSN
- 0002-9378 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2919771998
- Cited by
- 258
- References
- 263
- FWCI
- 10.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Does the human placenta delivered at term have a microbiota? Results of cultivation, quantitative real-time PCR, 16S rRNA gene sequencing, and metagenomics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ajog.2018.10.018
- The paper
- Theis, K. R., Romero, R., Winters, A. D., Greenberg, J. M., Gomez-Lopez, N., Alhousseini, A., Bieda, J., Maymon, E., Pacora, P., Fettweis, J. M., Buck, G. A., Jefferson, K. K., Strauss, J. F., Erez, O., & Hassan, S. S. (2019). Does the human placenta delivered at term have a microbiota? Results of cultivation, quantitative real-time PCR, 16S rRNA gene sequencing, and metagenomics. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2018.10.018
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.