Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34739493›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Characterization of the endometrial, cervicovaginal and anorectal microbiota in post-menopausal women with endometrioid and serous endometrial cancers.

Gregory M Gressel, Mykhaylo Usyk, Marina Frimer, D Y S Kuo, Robert D Burk

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gregory M GresselDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Women's Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-6729-4571
Mykhaylo UsykDepartment of Pediatrics, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, United States of America.
Marina FrimerDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Karches Center for Oncology Research, Feinstein Institutes at Northwell Health, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, NY, United States of America.
D Y S KuoDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Women's Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, United States of America.
Robert D BurkDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Women's Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, United States of America.
Albert Einstein College of Medicine · USNorthwell Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo characterize the microbiota of postmenopausal women undergoing hysterectomy for endometrioid (EAC) or uterine serous cancers (USC) compared to controls with non-malignant conditions.

methodsEndometrial, cervicovaginal and anorectal microbial swabs were obtained from 35 postmenopausal women (10 controls, 14 EAC and 11 USC) undergoing hysterectomy. Extracted DNA was PCR amplified using barcoded 16S rRNA gene V4 primers. Sequenced libraries were processed using QIIME2. Phyloseq was used to calculate α- and β- diversity measures. Biomarkers associated with case status were identified using ANCOM after adjustment for patient age, race and BMI. PICRUSt was used to identify microbial pathways associated with case status.

resultsBeta-diversity of microbial communities across each niche was significantly different (R2 = 0.25, p < 0.001). Alpha-diversity of the uterine microbiome was reduced in USC (Chao1, p = 0.004 and Fisher, p = 0.007) compared to EAC. Biomarkers from the three anatomical sites allowed samples to be clustered into two distinct clades that distinguished controls from USC cases (p = 0.042). The USC group was defined by 13 bacterial taxa across the three sites (W-stat>10, FDR<0.05) including depletion of cervicovaginal Lactobacillus and elevation of uterine Pseudomonas. PICRUSTt analysis revealed highly significant differences between the USC-associated clades within the cervicovaginal and uterine microbiota.

conclusionsThe microbial diversity of anatomic niches in postmenopausal women with EAC and USC is different compared to controls. Multiple bacteria are associated with USC case status including elevated levels of cervicovaginal Lactobacillus, depletion of uterine Pseudomonas, and substantially different functional potentials identified within cervicovaginal and uterine niches.

Indexed as

AgedAnal CanalBiomarkers, TumorCarcinoma, EndometrioidCervix UteriCystadenocarcinoma, SerousEndometrial NeoplasmsEndometriumFemaleHumansMicrobiotaMiddle AgedPostmenopauseRectumRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSerous MembraneBiomarkers, TumorRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID34739493
PMCPMC8570463
OpenAlexW3209902354

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.