Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 271

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Lack of detection of a human placenta microbiome in samples from preterm and term deliveries

Open access
Leiby, Jacob S., McCormick, Kevin, Sherrill-Mix, Scott, Clarke, Erik L., Kessler, Lyanna R., Taylor, Louis J., Hofstaedter, Casey E., Roche, Aoife M., Mattei, Lisa M., Bittinger, Kyle, Elovitz, Michal A., Leite, Rita, Parry, Samuel, Bushman, Frederic D.·2018·Microbiome

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Historically, the human womb has been thought to be sterile in healthy pregnancies, but this idea has been challenged by recent studies using DNA sequence-based methods, which have suggested that the womb is colonized with bacteria. For example, analysis of DNA from placenta samples yielded small proportions of microbial sequences which were proposed to represent normal bacterial colonization. However, an analysis by our group showed no distinction between background negative controls and placenta samples. Also supporting the idea that the womb is sterile is the observation that germ-free mammals can be generated by sterile delivery of neonates into a sterile isolator, after which neonates remain germ-free, which would seem to provide strong data in support of sterility of the womb. RESULTS: To probe this further and to investigate possible placental colonization associated with spontaneous preterm birth, we carried out another study comparing microbiota in placenta samples from 20 term and 20 spontaneous preterm deliveries. Both 16S rRNA marker gene sequencing and shotgun metagenomic sequencing were used to characterize placenta and control samples. We first quantified absolute amounts of bacterial 16S rRNA gene sequences using 16S rRNA gene quantitative PCR (qPCR). As in our previous study, levels were found to be low in the placenta samples and indistinguishable from negative controls. Analysis by DNA sequencing did not yield a placenta microbiome distinct from negative controls, either using marker gene sequencing as in our previous work, or with shotgun metagenomic sequencing. Several types of artifacts, including erroneous read classifications and barcode misattribution, needed to be identified and removed from the data to clarify this point. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings do not support the existence of a consistent placental microbiome, in either placenta from term deliveries or spontaneous preterm births.

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/s40168-018-0575-4

Cites

13 of 13 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

Show all 13 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Leiby, J. S., McCormick, K., Sherrill-Mix, S., Clarke, E. L., Kessler, L. R., Taylor, L. J., Hofstaedter, C. E., Roche, A. M., Mattei, L. M., Bittinger, K., Elovitz, M. A., Leite, R., Parry, S., & Bushman, F. D.
Venue
Microbiome
Published
2018-10-30
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
196-196
ISSN
2049-2618 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2899101060
Cited by
271
References
13
FWCI
12.56
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

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.