Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32163469›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

The rodent vaginal microbiome across the estrous cycle and the effect of genital nerve electrical stimulation.

Micah Levy, Christine M Bassis, Eric Kennedy, Katie E Yoest, Jill B Becker, Jason Bell, Mitchell B Berger, Tim M Bruns

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Molecular association ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Animal Models and Alternatives in Vaginal Research: a Comparative Review.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2021
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Micah LevyNeuroscience, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.
Christine M BassisInternal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6047-0678
Eric KennedyBiointerfaces Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.
Katie E YoestPsychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.
Jill B BeckerPsychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.
Jason BellObstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.
Mitchell B BergerObstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.
Tim M BrunsBiointerfaces Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-1692-0541

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Treatment options are limited for the approximately 40% of postmenopausal women worldwide who suffer from female sexual dysfunction (FSD). Neural stimulation has shown potential as a treatment for genital arousal FSD, however the mechanisms for its improvement are unknown. One potential cause of some cases of genital arousal FSD are changes to the composition of the vaginal microbiota, which is associated with vulvovaginal atrophy. The primary hypothesis of this study was that neural stimulation may induce healthy changes in the vaginal microbiome, thereby improving genital arousal FSD symptoms. In this study we used healthy rats, which are a common animal model for sexual function, however the rat vaginal microbiome is understudied. Thus this study also sought to examine the composition of the rat vaginal microbiota. Treatment rats (n = 5) received 30 minutes of cutaneous electrical stimulation targeting the genital branch of the pudendal nerve, and Control animals (n = 4) had 30-minute sessions without stimulation. Vaginal lavage samples were taken during a 14-day baseline period including multiple estrous periods and after twice-weekly 30-minute sessions across a six-week trial period. Analysis of 16S rRNA gene sequences was used to characterize the rat vaginal microbiota in baseline samples and determine the effect of stimulation. We found that the rat vaginal microbiota is dominated by Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, and Actinobacteria, which changed in relative abundance during the estrous cycle and in relationship to each other. While the overall stimulation effects were unclear in these healthy rats, some Treatment animals had less alteration in microbiota composition between sequential samples than Control animals, suggesting that stimulation may help stabilize the vaginal microbiome. Future studies may consider additional physiological parameters, in addition to the microbiome composition, to further examine vaginal health and the effects of stimulation.

Indexed as

AnimalsArousalBacteriaElectric StimulationEstrous CycleFemaleMicrobiotaPudendal NerveRatsRats, Sprague-DawleyRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRodentiaVaginaRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID32163469
PMCPMC7067422

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.