Cited by 864Reproductive tract infections researchGut microbiota and healthOral microbiology and periodontitis research

The composition and stability of the vaginal microbiota of normal pregnant women is different from that of non-pregnant women

Open access
Romero, Roberto, Hassan, Sonia S, Gajer, Pawel, Tarca, Adi L, Fadrosh, Douglas W, Nikita, Lorraine, Galuppi, Marisa, Lamont, Ronald F +4 more·2014·Microbiome

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study was undertaken to characterize the vaginal microbiota throughout normal human pregnancy using sequence-based techniques. We compared the vaginal microbial composition of non-pregnant patients with a group of pregnant women who delivered at term. RESULTS: A retrospective case-control longitudinal study was designed and included non-pregnant women (n = 32) and pregnant women who delivered at term (38 to 42 weeks) without complications (n = 22). Serial samples of vaginal fluid were collected from both non-pregnant and pregnant patients. A 16S rRNA gene sequence-based survey was conducted using pyrosequencing to characterize the structure and stability of the vaginal microbiota. Linear mixed effects models and generalized estimating equations were used to identify the phylotypes whose relative abundance was different between the two study groups. The vaginal microbiota of normal pregnant women was different from that of non-pregnant women (higher abundance of Lactobacillus vaginalis, L. crispatus, L. gasseri and L. jensenii and lower abundance of 22 other phylotypes in pregnant women). Bacterial community state type (CST) IV-B or CST IV-A characterized by high relative abundance of species of genus Atopobium as well as the presence of Prevotella, Sneathia, Gardnerella, Ruminococcaceae, Parvimonas, Mobiluncus and other taxa previously shown to be associated with bacterial vaginosis were less frequent in normal pregnancy. The stability of the vaginal microbiota of pregnant women was higher than that of non-pregnant women; however, during normal pregnancy, bacterial communities shift almost exclusively from one CST dominated by Lactobacillus spp. to another CST dominated by Lactobacillus spp. CONCLUSION: We report the first longitudinal study of the vaginal microbiota in normal pregnancy. Differences in the composition and stability of the microbial community between pregnant and non-pregnant women were observed. Lactobacillus spp. were the predominant members of the microbial community in normal pregnancy. These results can serve as the basis to study the relationship between the vaginal microbiome and adverse pregnancy outcomes.

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 · 10.1186/2049-2618-2-4

Cites

279 of 279 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 280 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Donders GG Gram stain method shows better sensitivity than clinical criteria for detection of bacterial vaginosis in surveillance of pregnant, low-income women in a clinical setting Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol 1999 7 273 275 10598915 PMC1784764

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Romero, R., Hassan, S. S., Gajer, P., Tarca, A. L., Fadrosh, D. W., Nikita, L., Galuppi, M., Lamont, R. F., Chaemsaithong, P., Miranda, J., Chaiworapongsa, T., & Ravel, J.
Affiliations
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
Corresponding author
  • Romero, Roberto
  • Ravel, Jacques
Venue
Microbiome
Published
2014-02-03
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
10-10
ISSN
2049-2618 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2100318919
Cited by
852
References
280
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 77 · 2023: 85 · 2022: 72 · 2021: 106 · 2020: 94 · 2019: 104 · 2018: 54 · 2017: 66 · 2016: 49 · 2015: 43 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 1
FWCI
49.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2014-04-15)
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Microbiome (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (publishedVersion)
  • Human Biology (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  • Wayne State University
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
Keywords
vaginal microbiota, pregnancy, Lactobacillus, microbiome stability, bacterial vaginosis, Atopobium, Gardnerella, term birth

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