Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36983020›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2023

Comparing Vaginal and Endometrial Microbiota Using Culturomics: Proof of Concept.

Robin Vanstokstraeten, Ellen Callewaert, Susanne Blotwijk, Eleni Rombauts, Florence Crombé, Kristof Emmerechts, Oriane Soetens, Kristof Vandoorslaer, Deborah De Geyter, Camille Allonsius and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Endometrial Microbiome and Reproductive Receptivity: Diverse Perspectives.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

16 authors.

Robin VanstokstraetenDepartment of Microbiology and Infection Control, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), 1090 Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-5589-502X
Ellen CallewaertDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Entity of In Vitro Toxicology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Laarbeeklaan 103, 1090 Brussels, Belgium.
Susanne BlotwijkBiostatistics and Medical Informatics Research Group (BISI), Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Laarbeeklaan 103, 1090 Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-3488-8063
Eleni RombautsDepartment of Microbiology and Infection Control, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), 1090 Brussels, Belgium.
Florence CrombéDepartment of Microbiology and Infection Control, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), 1090 Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-1269-5546
Kristof EmmerechtsDepartment of Microbiology and Infection Control, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), 1090 Brussels, Belgium.
Oriane SoetensDepartment of Microbiology and Infection Control, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), 1090 Brussels, Belgium.
Kristof VandoorslaerDepartment of Microbiology and Infection Control, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), 1090 Brussels, Belgium.
Deborah De GeyterDepartment of Microbiology and Infection Control, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), 1090 Brussels, Belgium.
Camille AllonsiusDepartment of Bioscience Engineering, University of Antwerp (UA), 2020 Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-2599-9941
Leonore Vander DonckDepartment of Bioscience Engineering, University of Antwerp (UA), 2020 Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-6445-5237
Christophe BlockeelBrussels IVF, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), 1090 Brussels, Belgium.
Ingrid WyboDepartment of Microbiology and Infection Control, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), 1090 Brussels, Belgium.
Denis PiérardDepartment of Microbiology and Infection Control, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), 1090 Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-7756-3691
Thomas DemuyserDepartment of Microbiology and Infection Control, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), 1090 Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-6410-9246
Shari MackensBrussels IVF, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), 1090 Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is generally accepted that microorganisms can colonize a non-pathological endometrium. However, in a clinical setting, endometrial samples are always collected by passing through the vaginal-cervical route. As such, the vaginal and cervical microbiomes can easily cross-contaminate endometrial samples, resulting in a biased representation of the endometrial microbiome. This makes it difficult to demonstrate that the endometrial microbiome is not merely a reflection of contamination originating from sampling. Therefore, we investigated to what extent the endometrial microbiome corresponds to that of the vagina, applying culturomics on paired vaginal and endometrial samples. Culturomics could give novel insights into the microbiome of the female genital tract, as it overcomes sequencing-related bias. Ten subfertile women undergoing diagnostic hysteroscopy and endometrial biopsy were included. An additional vaginal swab was taken from each participant right before hysteroscopy. Both endometrial biopsies and vaginal swabs were analyzed using our previously described WASPLab-assisted culturomics protocol. In total, 101 bacterial and two fungal species were identified among these 10 patients. Fifty-six species were found in endometrial biopsies and 90 were found in vaginal swabs. On average, 28 % of species were found in both the endometrial biopsy and vaginal swab of a given patient. Of the 56 species found in the endometrial biopsies, 13 were not found in the vaginal swabs. Of the 90 species found in vaginal swabs, 47 were not found in the endometrium. Our culturomics-based approach sheds a different light on the current understanding of the endometrial microbiome. The data suggest the potential existence of a unique endometrial microbiome that is not merely a presentation of cross-contamination derived from sampling. However, we cannot exclude cross-contamination completely. In addition, we observe that the microbiome of the vagina is richer in species than that of the endometrium, which contradicts the current sequence-based literature.

Indexed as

InfertilityMicrobiotaCervix UteriEndometriumFemaleHumansRNA, Ribosomal, 16SVaginaRNA, Ribosomal, 16S16S rRNAARTculturomicsembryo implantationendometrial microbiomeMALDI-TOFvaginal microbiome

Identifiers

PMID36983020
PMCPMC10055768

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.