Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 307

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 78 of the 78 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Characterisation of the human uterine microbiome in non-pregnant women through deep sequencing of the V1-2 region of the 16S rRNA gene

Open access
Verstraelen, Hans, Vilchez-Vargas, Ramiro, Desimpel, Fabian, Jauregui, Ruy, Vankeirsbilck, Nele, Weyers, Steven, Verhelst, Rita, De Sutter, Petra, Pieper, Dietmar H., Van De Wiele, Tom·2016·PeerJ
DOI 10.7717/peerj.1602
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background. It is widely assumed that the uterine cavity in non-pregnant women is physiologically sterile, also as a premise to the long-held view that human infants develop in a sterile uterine environment, though likely reflecting under-appraisal of the extent of the human bacterial metacommunity. In an exploratory study, we aimed to investigate the putative presence of a uterine microbiome in a selected series of non-pregnant women through deep sequencing of the V1-2 hypervariable region of the 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene. Methods. Nineteen women with various reproductive conditions, including subfertility, scheduled for hysteroscopy and not showing uterine anomalies were recruited. Subjects were highly diverse with regard to demographic and medical history and included nulliparous and parous women. Endometrial tissue and mucus harvesting was performed by use of a transcervical device designed to obtain endometrial biopsy, while avoiding cervicovaginal contamination. Bacteria were targeted by use of a barcoded Illumina MiSeq paired-end sequencing method targeting the 16S rRNA gene V1-2 region, yielding an average of 41,194 reads per sample after quality filtering. Taxonomic annotation was pursued by comparison with sequences available through the Ribosomal Database Project and the NCBI database. Results. Out of 183 unique 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequences, 15 phylotypes were present in all samples. In some 90% of the women included, community architecture was fairly similar inasmuch B. xylanisolvens , B. thetaiotaomicron , B. fragilis and an undetermined Pelomonas taxon constituted over one third of the endometrial bacterial community. On the singular phylotype level, six women showed predominance of L. crispatus or L. iners in the presence of the Bacteroides core. Two endometrial communities were highly dissimilar, largely lacking the Bacteroides core, one dominated by L. crispatus and another consisting of a highly diverse community, including Prevotella spp., Atopobium vaginae , and Mobiluncus curtisii . Discussion. Our findings are, albeit not necessarily generalizable, consistent with the presence of a unique microbiota dominated by Bacteroides residing on the endometrium of the human non-pregnant uterus. The transcervical sampling approach may be influenced to an unknown extent by endocervical microbiota, which remain uncharacterised, and therefore warrants further validation. Nonetheless, consistent with our understanding of the human microbiome, the uterine microbiota are likely to have a previously unrecognized role in uterine physiology and human reproduction. Further study is therefore warranted to document community ecology and dynamics of the uterine microbiota, as well as the role of the uterine microbiome in health and disease.

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 · 10.7717/peerj.1602

Cites

78 of 78 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

Cited by

See all 307

Metadata

Authors
Verstraelen, H., Vilchez-Vargas, R., Desimpel, F., Jauregui, R., Vankeirsbilck, N., Weyers, S., Verhelst, R., De Sutter, P., Pieper, D. H., & Van De Wiele, T.
Venue
PeerJ
Publisher
PeerJ
Published
2016-01-19
Volume
4
Pages
e1602
ISSN
2167-8359 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.7717/peerj.1602
OpenAlex
W1655950349
Cited by
307
References
78
FWCI
22.63
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.