↓ Skip to main content

Potential contribution of the uterine microbiome in the development of endometrial cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Medicine, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#26 of 1,067)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
13 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
43 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Potential contribution of the uterine microbiome in the development of endometrial cancer
Published in
Genome Medicine, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13073-016-0368-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marina R. S. Walther-António, Jun Chen, Francesco Multinu, Alexis Hokenstad, Tammy J. Distad, E. Heidi Cheek, Gary L. Keeney, Douglas J. Creedon, Heidi Nelson, Andrea Mariani, Nicholas Chia

Abstract

Endometrial cancer studies have led to a number of well-defined but mechanistically unconnected genetic and environmental risk factors. One of the emerging modulators between environmental triggers and genetic expression is the microbiome. We set out to inquire about the composition of the uterine microbiome and its putative role in endometrial cancer. We undertook a study of the microbiome in samples taken from different locations along the female reproductive tract in patients with endometrial cancer (n = 17), patients with endometrial hyperplasia (endometrial cancer precursor, n = 4), and patients afflicted with benign uterine conditions (n = 10). Vaginal, cervical, Fallopian, ovarian, peritoneal, and urine samples were collected aseptically both in the operating room and the pathology laboratory. DNA extraction was followed by amplification and high-throughput next generation sequencing (MiSeq) of the 16S rDNA V3-V5 region to identify the microbiota present. Microbiota data were summarized using both α-diversity to reflect species richness and evenness within bacterial populations and β-diversity to reflect the shared diversity between bacterial populations. Statistical significance was determined through the use of multiple testing, including the generalized mixed-effects model. The microbiome sequencing (16S rDNA V3-V5 region) revealed that the microbiomes of all organs (vagina, cervix, Fallopian tubes, and ovaries) are significantly correlated (p < 0.001) and that there is a structural microbiome shift in the cancer and hyperplasia cases, distinguishable from the benign cases (p = 0.01). Several taxa were found to be significantly enriched in samples belonging to the endometrial cancer cohort: Firmicutes (Anaerostipes, ph2, Dialister, Peptoniphilus, 1-68, Ruminococcus, and Anaerotruncus), Spirochaetes (Treponema), Actinobacteria (Atopobium), Bacteroidetes (Bacteroides and Porphyromonas), and Proteobacteria (Arthrospira). Of particular relevance, the simultaneous presence of Atopobium vaginae and an uncultured representative of the Porphyromonas sp. (99 % match to P. somerae) were found to be associated with disease status, especially if combined with a high vaginal pH (>4.5). Our results suggest that the detection of A. vaginae and the identified Porphyromonas sp. in the gynecologic tract combined with a high vaginal pH is statistically associated with the presence of endometrial cancer. Given the documented association of the identified microorganisms with other pathologies, these findings raise the possibility of a microbiome role in the manifestation, etiology, or progression of endometrial cancer that should be further investigated.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 142 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 21%
Student > Bachelor 27 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 8%
Student > Master 11 8%
Student > Postgraduate 8 6%
Other 33 23%
Unknown 22 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 26 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 17%
Immunology and Microbiology 11 8%
Computer Science 4 3%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 32 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 137. 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 August 2019.
All research outputs
#144,139
of 15,712,594 outputs
Outputs from Genome Medicine
#26
of 1,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,849
of 389,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Medicine
#10
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,712,594 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,067 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 389,429 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 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 90% of its contemporaries.