ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2023
Comparative analysis of vaginal microbiota sampling using menstrual cups and high vaginal swabs in pregnant women living with HIV-1 infection.
Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Menstrual cups (MCs) are increasingly used to collect cervicovaginal secretions to characterise vaginal mucosal immunology, in conjunction with high vaginal swabs (HVS) for metataxonomics, particularly in HIV transmission studies. We hypothesised that both methods of collecting bacterial biomass are equivalent for 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Material and Methods: Cervicovaginal fluid (CVF) samples from 16 pregnant women with HIV-1 (PWWH) were included to represent the major vaginal bacterial community state types (CST I-V). Women underwent sampling during the second trimester by liquid amies HVS followed by a MC (Soft disc™) and samples were stored at -80°C. Bacterial cell pellets obtained from swab elution and MC (500 µL, 1 in 10 dilution) were resuspended in 120 µL PBS for DNA extraction. Bacterial 16S rRNA gene sequencing was performed using V1-V2 primers and were analysed using MOTHUR. Paired total DNA, bacterial load, amplicon read counts, diversity matrices and bacterial taxa were compared by sampling method using MicrobiomeAnalyst, SPSS and R. Results: The total DNA eluted from one aliquot of diluted CVF from an MC was similar to that of a HVS (993ng and 609ng, p=0.18); the mean bacterial loads were also comparable for both methods (MC: 8.0 log10 16S rRNA gene copies versus HVS: 7.9 log10 16S rRNA gene copies, p=0.27). The mean number of sequence reads generated from MC samples was lower than from HVS (MC: 12730; HVS:14830, p=0.05). The α-diversity metrices were similar for both techniques; MC Species Observed: 41 (range 12-96) versus HVS: 47 (range 16-96), p=0.15; MC Inverse Simpson Index: 1.98 (range 1.0-4.0) versus HVS: 0.48 (range 1.0-4.4), p=0.22). The three most abundant species observed were: Conclusion: These data demonstrate that despite sampling slightly different areas of the lower genital tract, there was no difference in bacterial load or composition between methods. Both are suitable for characterisation of vaginal microbiota in PWWH. The MC offers advantages, including a higher volume of sample available for DNA extraction and complimentary assays.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.