Cited by 539Gut microbiota and healthReproductive tract infections researchMicrobial Community Ecology and Physiology

Comparison of placenta samples with contamination controls does not provide evidence for a distinct placenta microbiota

Open access
Lauder, Abigail P., Roche, Aoife M., Sherrill-Mix, Scott, Bailey, Aubrey, Laughlin, Alice L., Bittinger, Kyle, Leite, Rita, Elovitz, Michal A. +2 more·2016·Microbiome

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have suggested that bacteria associated with the placenta-a "placental microbiome"-may be important in reproductive health and disease. However, a challenge in working with specimens with low bacterial biomass, such as placental samples, is that some or all of the bacterial DNA may derive from contamination in dust or commercial reagents. To investigate this, we compared placental samples from healthy deliveries to a matched set of contamination controls, as well as to oral and vaginal samples from the same women. RESULTS: We quantified total 16S rRNA gene copies using quantitative PCR and found that placental samples and negative controls contained low and indistinguishable copy numbers. Oral and vaginal swab samples, in contrast, showed higher copy numbers. We carried out 16S rRNA gene sequencing and community analysis and found no separation between communities from placental samples and contamination controls, though oral and vaginal samples showed characteristic, distinctive composition. Two different DNA purification methods were compared with similar conclusions, though the composition of the contamination background differed. Authentically present microbiota should yield mostly similar results regardless of the purification method used-this was seen for oral samples, but no placental bacterial lineages were (1) shared between extraction methods, (2) present at >1 % of the total, and (3) present at greater abundance in placental samples than contamination controls. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that for this sample set, using the methods described, we could not distinguish between placental samples and contamination introduced during DNA purification.

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/s40168-016-0172-3

Cites

47 of 47 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?

  • Prior research has indicated that the differences between 16S qPCR copy numbers produced from the same samples but extracted with both PSP and MoBio kit were statistically negligible.

    “Prior research has indicated that the differences between 16S qPCR copy numbers produced from the same samples but extracted with both PSP and MoBio kit were statistically negligible [84]”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lauder, A. P., Roche, A. M., Sherrill-Mix, S., Bailey, A., Laughlin, A. L., Bittinger, K., Leite, R., Elovitz, M. A., Parry, S., & Bushman, F. D.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
  • Parry, Samuel
  • Bushman, Frederic D.
Venue
Microbiome
Published
2016-06-23
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
29-29
ISSN
2049-2618 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2462800864
Cited by
539
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 84 · 2020: 84 · 2019: 84 · 2018: 64 · 2017: 44 · 2016: 4
FWCI
33.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Microbiome (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (T32 AI007632, P30 AI045008)
  • March of Dimes Foundation (March of Dimes Prematurity Research Center at the University of Pennsylvania)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
Keywords
placental microbiome, placenta, contamination control, 16S rRNA gene sequencing, DNA extraction methods, bacterial DNA contamination, oral microbiota, vaginal microbiota, 16S rRNA gene copy number, low-biomass samples
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Mouth, Placenta, Pregnancy, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, Specimen Handling, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Gene Dosage, Microbiota

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