Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36934229›Full record

ReviewBMC microbiology2023

Is there a placental microbiota? A critical review and re-analysis of published placental microbiota datasets.

Jonathan J Panzer, Roberto Romero, Jonathan M Greenberg, Andrew D Winters, Jose Galaz, Nardhy Gomez-Lopez, Kevin R Theis

Open access · goldFull text readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC microbiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Obstetric Pharmacomicrobiomics.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Microbial Contributions to Primate Reproduction.Evolutionary anthropology · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Jonathan J PanzerPregnancy Research Branch, Division of Obstetrics and Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Division of Intramural Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Detroit, MI, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0748-5859
Roberto RomeroPregnancy Research Branch, Division of Obstetrics and Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Division of Intramural Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Detroit, MI, USA. prbchiefstaff@med.wayne.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-4448-5121
Jonathan M GreenbergPregnancy Research Branch, Division of Obstetrics and Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Division of Intramural Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Detroit, MI, USA.
Andrew D WintersPregnancy Research Branch, Division of Obstetrics and Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Division of Intramural Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Detroit, MI, USA.
Jose GalazPregnancy Research Branch, Division of Obstetrics and Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Division of Intramural Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Detroit, MI, USA.
Nardhy Gomez-LopezPregnancy Research Branch, Division of Obstetrics and Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Division of Intramural Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Detroit, MI, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3406-5262
Kevin R TheisPregnancy Research Branch, Division of Obstetrics and Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Division of Intramural Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Detroit, MI, USA. ktheis@med.wayne.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-8690-7599
National Institutes of Health · US

Funding

Prenatal Diagnosis Of Congenital AnomaliesZIAHD002401 · NICHD · EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT · PI ROMERO, ROBERTO · 2009 to 2025
$81.1M
NICHD NIH HHS HHSN275201300006C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The existence of a placental microbiota is debated. The human placenta has historically been considered sterile and microbial colonization was associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Yet, recent DNA sequencing investigations reported a microbiota in typical human term placentas. However, this detected microbiota could represent background DNA or delivery-associated contamination. Using fifteen publicly available 16S rRNA gene datasets, existing data were uniformly re-analyzed with DADA2 to maximize comparability. While Amplicon Sequence Variants (ASVs) identified as Lactobacillus, a typical vaginal bacterium, were highly abundant and prevalent across studies, this prevalence disappeared after applying likely  DNA contaminant removal to placentas from term cesarean deliveries. A six-study sub-analysis targeting the 16S rRNA gene V4 hypervariable region demonstrated that bacterial profiles of placental samples and technical controls share principal bacterial ASVs and that placental samples clustered primarily by study origin and mode of delivery. Contemporary DNA-based evidence does not support the existence of a placental microbiota.ImportanceEarly-gestational microbial influences on human development are unclear. By applying DNA sequencing technologies to placental tissue, bacterial DNA signals were observed, leading some to conclude that a live bacterial placental microbiome exists in typical term pregnancy. However, the low-biomass nature of the proposed microbiome and high sensitivity of current DNA sequencing technologies indicate that the signal may alternatively derive from environmental or delivery-associated bacterial DNA contamination. Here we address these alternatives with a re-analysis of 16S rRNA gene sequencing data from 15 publicly available placental datasets. After identical DADA2 pipeline processing of the raw data, subanalyses were performed to control for mode of delivery and environmental DNA contamination. Both environment and mode of delivery profoundly influenced the bacterial DNA signal from term-delivered placentas. Aside from these contamination-associated signals, consistency was lacking across studies. Thus, placentas delivered at term are unlikely to be the original source of observed bacterial DNA signals.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaPlacentaBacteriaDNA, BacterialFemaleHumansPregnancyRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSequence Analysis, DNADNA, BacterialRNA, Ribosomal, 16S16S rRNA gene sequencingLow microbial biomass samplingMicrobiomePlacentaSterile womb

Identifiers

PMID36934229
PMCPMC10024458
OpenAlexW4327857973

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read39
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.