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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 279 of the 280 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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, Chaemsaithong, Piya, Miranda, Jezid, Chaiworapongsa, Tinnakorn, Ravel, Jacques·2014·Microbiome
DOI 10.1186/2049-2618-2-4PMC PMC3916806
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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.

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 · 10.1186/2049-2618-2-4

Cites

279 of 279 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Heatmap of percentage abundance of microbial taxa found in the vaginal microbial communities of 22 normal pregnant women who delivered at term and 32 non-pregnant women sampled longitudinally. Ward linkage hierarchical clustering of Jensen-Shannon metric identified five community state types (CST I, II, III, IV-A and IV-B). The upper color bar shows the five community state types while the lower color bar shows the pregnancy status of each sample (NP: Non Pregnant; TD: Term Delivery).
Figure 1 Heatmap of percentage abundance of microbial taxa found in the vaginal microbial communities of 22 normal pregnant women who delivered at term and 32 non-pregnant women sampled longitudinally. Ward linkage hierarchical clustering of Jensen-Shannon metric identified five community state types (CST I, II, III, IV-A and IV-B). The upper color bar shows the five community state types while the lower color bar shows the pregnancy status of each sample (NP: Non Pregnant; TD: Term Delivery).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Profiles of community state types for pregnant women who delivered at term as a function of gestational age. Gestational age at delivery is indicated by blue solid circles.
Figure 2 Profiles of community state types for pregnant women who delivered at term as a function of gestational age. Gestational age at delivery is indicated by blue solid circles.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Estimates of community change over time in non-pregnant and pregnant women who delivered at term. (A) Jensen-Shannon distances between each community state and the mean community state for each subject. The larger the distance, the higher the instability of the microbial community within a subject. The mean within-subject log Jensen-Shannon distance of pregnant women was significantly lower than that for non-pregnant women (difference in means -0.473 log units; that is, 1.6-fold lower Jensen-Shannon distance, P < 0.001). (B) Jensen-Shannon distance between each community state and the mean community state of all samples assigned to CST IV-A and CST IV-B. The higher the distance, the less frequently a community enters CST IV-A or CST IV-B. The mean log Jensen-Shannon distance of pregnant women was significantly higher than that for non-pregnant women (difference in means 0.13 log units; that is, 1.14-fold, P < 0.001).
Figure 3 Estimates of community change over time in non-pregnant and pregnant women who delivered at term. (A) Jensen-Shannon distances between each community state and the mean community state for each subject. The larger the distance, the higher the instability of the microbial community within a subject. The mean within-subject log Jensen-Shannon distance of pregnant women was significantly lower than that for non-pregnant women (difference in means -0.473 log units; that is, 1.6-fold lower Jensen-Shannon distance, P < 0.001). (B) Jensen-Shannon distance between each community state and the mean community state of all samples assigned to CST IV-A and CST IV-B. The higher the distance, the less frequently a community enters CST IV-A or CST IV-B. The mean log Jensen-Shannon distance of pregnant women was significantly higher than that for non-pregnant women (difference in means 0.13 log units; that is, 1.14-fold, P < 0.001).CC BY · PubMed Central

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

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 280 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Döderlein A: Das Scheidensekret und seine Bedeutung fuerdas Puerperalfieber. Die Arten des Scheidensekretes. 1892, 11: 699-
  2. Højsgaard S, Halekoh U, Yan J: The R package geepack for generalized estimating equations. J Stat Softw. 2006, 15: 1-11.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 864

Related

See all

Metadata

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
ORCID
Venue
Microbiome
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2014-02-03
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
10-10
ISSN
2049-2618 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/2049-2618-2-4
PMC
PMC3916806
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
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