| Title |
A role for the endometrial microbiome in dysfunctional menstrual bleeding
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10482-017-0992-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elise S. Pelzer, Dana Willner, Melissa Buttini, Flavia Huygens |
| Abstract |
This study aimed to characterise the microbial community within the endometrial cavity and endocervix in women with menorrhagia or dysmenorrhea. Paired endocervical and endometrial biopsy samples were collected from women undergoing operative hysteroscopy and/or laparoscopy. Samples were cohorted based on pathology, indications for surgery, and histological dating of the endometrium. Samples were interrogated for the presence of microbial DNA using a two-step next generation sequencing technology approach to exploit the V5-V8 regions of the 16S rRNA gene. Pyrosequencing revealed that the endocervix and endometrium share a minor microbial community, but that each site harbours a separate and distinct microbial population (p = 0.024). This was also the case for women with menorrhagia and dysmenorrhea (p = 0.017). Lactobacillus spp. were the most abundant microbial taxa present in 50% of the cohorts, and across all endocervical groups. Members of the genera Prevotella, Fusobacterium and Jonquetella were the most abundant taxa identified in samples collected from nulliparous women. It can be concluded that the female upper genital tract is not sterile. Microbial community profiling revealed differences in the endometrial microbial community profiles for: (1) the endocervix compared to the endometrium, and (2), women with menorrhagia versus dysmenorrhea. The distinct microbial community profiles in these women may offer insight into the pathology and clinical management of dysfunctional menstrual bleeding. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 13% |
| Austria | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 63% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 94 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 13% |
| Researcher | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Unknown | 33 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 20% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 13 | 14% |
| Unknown | 41 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 September 2023.
All research outputs
#2,765,380
of 24,885,505 outputs
Outputs from Antonie van Leeuwenhoek
#102
of 2,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,023
of 454,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Antonie van Leeuwenhoek
#3
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,885,505 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,129 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 454,121 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.