Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36223010›Full record

ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2022

Improving analysis of the vaginal microbiota of women undergoing assisted reproduction using nanopore sequencing.

Theresa Lüth, Simon Graspeuntner, Kay Neumann, Laura Kirchhoff, Antonia Masuch, Susen Schaake, Mariia Lupatsii, Ronnie Tse, Georg Griesinger, Joanne Trinh and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Theresa Lüth *Institute of Neurogenetics, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Simon Graspeuntner *Department of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany. Simon.Graspeuntner@uksh.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2546-2223
Kay NeumannDepartment of Gynaecological Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Laura KirchhoffDepartment of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Antonia MasuchDepartment of Gynaecological Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Susen SchaakeInstitute of Neurogenetics, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Mariia LupatsiiDepartment of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Ronnie TseInstitute of Neurogenetics, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Georg GriesingerDepartment of Gynaecological Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Joanne TrinhInstitute of Neurogenetics, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Jan RuppDepartment of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
University of Lübeck · DEUniversity Hospital Schleswig-Holstein · DEGerman Center for Infection Research · DEUniversitäres Kinderwunschzentrum Lübeck · DE

Funding

Universität zu Lübeck J10_2020
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeSubclinical alterations of the vaginal microbiome have been described to be associated with female infertility and may serve as predictors for failure of in vitro fertilization treatment. While large prospective studies to delineate the role of microbial composition are warranted, integrating microbiome information into clinical management depends on economical and practical feasibility, specifically on a short duration from sampling to final results. The currently most used method for microbiota analysis is either metagenomics sequencing or amplicon-based microbiota analysis using second-generation methods such as sequencing-by-synthesis approaches (Illumina), which is both expensive and time-consuming. Thus, additional approaches are warranted to accelerate the usability of the microbiome as a marker in clinical praxis.

methodsHerein, we used a set of ten selected vaginal swabs from women undergoing assisted reproduction, comparing and performing critical optimization of nanopore-based microbiota analysis with the results from MiSeq-based data as a quality reference.

resultsThe analyzed samples carried varying community compositions, as shown by amplicon-based analysis of the V3V4 region of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene by MiSeq sequencing. Using a stepwise procedure to optimize adaptation, we show that a close approximation of the microbial composition can be achieved within a reduced time frame and at a minimum of costs using nanopore sequencing.

conclusionsOur work highlights the potential of a nanopore-based methodical setup to support the feasibility of interventional studies and contribute to the development of microbiome-based clinical decision-making in assisted reproduction.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaNanopore SequencingFemaleHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansProspective StudiesReproductionRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 16SAssisted reproductionClinical decision-makingIn vitro fertilizationMicrobiomeThird-generation sequencing

Identifiers

PMID36223010
PMCPMC9722992
OpenAlexW4304689582

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.