Uterine pathology and microbiome among patients with endometrial polyps and fibroids.

Sabrine Bensouda, Sarah C Cromack, Allison S Komorowski, Elena HogenEsch, Matthew J Schipma, Xinkun Wang, Hailie Fowler, MaryEllen Pavone, Stefan J Green, Lia A Bernardi, Jennifer B Bakkensen
{"title":"Uterine pathology and microbiome among patients with endometrial polyps and fibroids.","authors":"Sabrine Bensouda, Sarah C Cromack, Allison S Komorowski, Elena HogenEsch, Matthew J Schipma, Xinkun Wang, Hailie Fowler, MaryEllen Pavone, Stefan J Green, Lia A Bernardi, Jennifer B Bakkensen","doi":"10.1016/j.xfss.2024.12.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the uterine microbiome among women with endometrial polyps and submucosal fibroids and to compare results between endometrial sampling techniques.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Patients with polyps or fibroids were prospectively recruited before hysteroscopy, whereas patients undergoing retrieval for planned oocyte cryopreservation were recruited prospectively as controls. Three specimen types obtained for each patient were the distal 5 mm of an embryo catheter passed to the uterine fundus (C), endometrial tissue from an endometrial biopsy (T), and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) endometrial tissue from the same endometrial biopsy. 16S ribosomal RNA gene amplicon sequencing was performed to analyze the structure of the endometrial microbiome.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Not applicable.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Thirty-seven participants including 28 women with polyps and/or fibroids and 9 controls.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>None.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Microbial taxonomic alpha and beta diversity; differential abundance of taxa.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across all sample types, participants with polyps had higher microbial alpha diversity than controls (4.3 vs. 5.1, q = 0.049), and microbial communities were significantly different (pairwise Permutational Multivariate Analysis of Variance (PERMANOVA) pseudo-F = 2.1, q = 0.003). These differences were observed when examining C specimens alone (5.4 vs. 6.4, q = 0.001; pairwise PERMANOVA pseudo-F = 2.5, q = 0.003), although they did not reach significance when examining either T or FFPE specimens alone. Participants with fibroids had similar alpha diversity yet significant differences in beta diversity compared with controls in analyses combining all specimens (pairwise PERMANOVA pseudo-F = 1.475, q = 0.030); however, these differences did not achieve significance when analyzing C, T, or FFPE specimens alone. When comparing C and T specimens vs. FFPE specimens overall, alpha diversity was significantly higher (q < 0.001 and q < 0.001, respectively) and there were significant differences in beta diversity (q < 0.003 and q < 0.003, respectively). Analyses of C specimens generated a larger number of significantly differentially abundant taxa compared with other sampling methods. Although not statistically significant, relative abundance of putative pathogens was higher in participants with polyps than controls regardless of sampling technique.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Results of this exploratory study suggest that significant microbial differences exist among patients with endometrial polyps vs. healthy controls. However, results varied by sampling technique, highlighting a need to identify optimal sampling methods before validating findings in larger prospective cohort studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":73012,"journal":{"name":"F&S science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"F&S science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xfss.2024.12.002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the uterine microbiome among women with endometrial polyps and submucosal fibroids and to compare results between endometrial sampling techniques.

Design: Patients with polyps or fibroids were prospectively recruited before hysteroscopy, whereas patients undergoing retrieval for planned oocyte cryopreservation were recruited prospectively as controls. Three specimen types obtained for each patient were the distal 5 mm of an embryo catheter passed to the uterine fundus (C), endometrial tissue from an endometrial biopsy (T), and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) endometrial tissue from the same endometrial biopsy. 16S ribosomal RNA gene amplicon sequencing was performed to analyze the structure of the endometrial microbiome.

Setting: Not applicable.

Patients: Thirty-seven participants including 28 women with polyps and/or fibroids and 9 controls.

Intervention: None.

Main outcome measures: Microbial taxonomic alpha and beta diversity; differential abundance of taxa.

Results: Across all sample types, participants with polyps had higher microbial alpha diversity than controls (4.3 vs. 5.1, q = 0.049), and microbial communities were significantly different (pairwise Permutational Multivariate Analysis of Variance (PERMANOVA) pseudo-F = 2.1, q = 0.003). These differences were observed when examining C specimens alone (5.4 vs. 6.4, q = 0.001; pairwise PERMANOVA pseudo-F = 2.5, q = 0.003), although they did not reach significance when examining either T or FFPE specimens alone. Participants with fibroids had similar alpha diversity yet significant differences in beta diversity compared with controls in analyses combining all specimens (pairwise PERMANOVA pseudo-F = 1.475, q = 0.030); however, these differences did not achieve significance when analyzing C, T, or FFPE specimens alone. When comparing C and T specimens vs. FFPE specimens overall, alpha diversity was significantly higher (q < 0.001 and q < 0.001, respectively) and there were significant differences in beta diversity (q < 0.003 and q < 0.003, respectively). Analyses of C specimens generated a larger number of significantly differentially abundant taxa compared with other sampling methods. Although not statistically significant, relative abundance of putative pathogens was higher in participants with polyps than controls regardless of sampling technique.

Conclusions: Results of this exploratory study suggest that significant microbial differences exist among patients with endometrial polyps vs. healthy controls. However, results varied by sampling technique, highlighting a need to identify optimal sampling methods before validating findings in larger prospective cohort studies.

子宫内膜息肉和肌瘤患者的子宫病理和微生物组。
目的:探讨子宫内膜息肉和粘膜下肌瘤患者的子宫微生物组,并比较两种子宫内膜取样方法的结果。设计:在宫腔镜检查前前瞻性招募息肉或肌瘤患者,而计划进行卵母细胞冷冻保存的患者作为对照组前瞻性招募。每位患者获得的三种标本类型分别是经子宫底的胚胎导管远端5mm (C)、子宫内膜活检的子宫内膜组织(T)和同一子宫内膜活检的福尔马林固定石蜡包埋子宫内膜组织(FFPE)。采用16S rRNAgene扩增子测序分析子宫内膜微生物组结构。对象:37名参与者,包括28名患有息肉和/或肌瘤的女性和9名对照组。干预/暴露:无主要结局指标:微生物分类学α和β多样性;结果:在所有样本类型中,与对照组相比,息肉患者的微生物α多样性更高(4.3 vs 5.1, q = 0.049),微生物群落显著不同(两两PERMANOVA伪f = 2.1, q = 0.003)。单独检查C标本时观察到这些差异(5.4 vs 6.4, q = 0.001;配对PERMANOVA伪f = 2.5, q = 0.003),但单独检查T或FFPE标本时均未达到显著性。在合并所有样本的分析中,肌瘤患者的α多样性与对照组相似,但β多样性存在显著差异(配对PERMANOVA伪f = 1.475, q = 0.030);然而,当单独分析C、T或FFPE标本时,这些差异并不具有显著性。当将C和T标本与FFPE标本进行比较时,α多样性明显更高(结论:本探索性研究的结果表明,子宫内膜息肉患者与健康对照组之间存在显著的微生物差异。然而,结果因抽样技术的不同而不同,这突出表明,在更大规模的前瞻性队列研究中验证结果之前,需要确定最佳抽样方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
F&S science
F&S science Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, Urology
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
51 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信