Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 348

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Cloning of 16S rRNA genes amplified from normal and disturbed vaginal microflora suggests a strong association between Atopobium vaginae, Gardnerella vaginalis and bacterial vaginosis

Open access
Verhelst, Rita, Verstraelen, Hans, Claeys, Geert, Verschraegen, Gerda, Delanghe, Joris, Van Simaey, Leen, De Ganck, Catharine, Temmerman, Marleen, Vaneechoutte, Mario·2004·BMC Microbiology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The pathogenesis of bacterial vaginosis remains largely elusive, although some microorganisms, including Gardnerella vaginalis, are suspected of playing a role in the etiology of this disorder. Recently culture-independent analysis of microbial ecosystems has proven its efficacy in characterizing the diversity of bacterial populations. Here, we report on the results obtained by combining culture and PCR-based methods to characterize the normal and disturbed vaginal microflora. RESULTS: A total of 150 vaginal swab samples from healthy women (115 pregnant and 35 non-pregnant) were categorized on the basis of Gram stain of direct smear as grade I (n = 112), grade II (n = 26), grade III (n = 9) or grade IV (n = 3). The composition of the vaginal microbial community of eight of these vaginal swabs (three grade I, two grade II and three grade III), all from non-pregnant women, were studied by culture and by cloning of the 16S rRNA genes obtained after direct amplification. Forty-six cultured isolates were identified by tDNA-PCR, 854 cloned 16S rRNA gene fragments were analysed of which 156 by sequencing, yielding a total of 38 species, including 9 presumptively novel species with at least five species that have not been isolated previously from vaginal samples. Interestingly, cloning revealed that Atopobium vaginae was abundant in four out of the five non-grade I specimens. Finally, species specific PCR for A. vaginae and Gardnerella vaginalis pointed to a statistically significant co-occurrence of both species in the bacterial vaginosis samples. CONCLUSIONS: Although historically the literature regarding bacterial vaginosis has largely focused on G. vaginalis in particular, several findings of this study--like the abundance of A. vaginae in disturbed vaginal microflora and the presence of several novel species--indicate that much is to be learned about the composition of the vaginal microflora and its relation to the etiology of BV.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2180-4-16

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.

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

Cited by

See all 348

Metadata

Authors
Verhelst, R., Verstraelen, H., Claeys, G., Verschraegen, G., Delanghe, J., Van Simaey, L., De Ganck, C., Temmerman, M., & Vaneechoutte, M.
Venue
BMC Microbiology
Published
2004-04-21
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
16-16
ISSN
1471-2180 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2117294869
Cited by
348
References
0
FWCI
11.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Cloning of 16S rRNA genes amplified from normal and disturbed vaginal microflora suggests a strong association between Atopobium vaginae, Gardnerella vaginalis and bacterial vaginosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2180-4-16
The paper
Verhelst, R., Verstraelen, H., Claeys, G., Verschraegen, G., Delanghe, J., Van Simaey, L., De Ganck, C., Temmerman, M., & Vaneechoutte, M. (2004). Cloning of 16S rRNA genes amplified from normal and disturbed vaginal microflora suggests a strong association between Atopobium vaginae, Gardnerella vaginalis and bacterial vaginosis. BMC Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-4-16

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.