Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 258

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 access
Theis, Kevin R., Romero, Roberto, Winters, Andrew D., Greenberg, Jonathan M., Gomez-Lopez, Nardhy, Alhousseini, Ali, Bieda, Janine, Maymon, Eli, Pacora, Percy, Fettweis, Jennifer M., Buck, Gregory A., Jefferson, Kimberly K., Strauss, Jerome F., Erez, Offer, Hassan, Sonia S.·2019·American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.10.018

Cites

263 of 263 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 263 references

Cited by

See all 258

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.