Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39020289›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2024

Gut microbiome in endometriosis: a cohort study on 1000 individuals.

Inmaculada Pérez-Prieto, Eva Vargas, Eduardo Salas-Espejo, Kreete Lüll, Analuce Canha-Gouveia, Laura Antequera Pérez, Juan Fontes, Andres Salumets, Reidar Andreson, Oliver Aasmets and 4 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Inmaculada Pérez-PrietoDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology I, Faculty of Sciences, University of Granada, Granada, Spain. inmapprieto@ugr.es.ORCID 0000-0002-1141-9187
Eva VargasDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology I, Faculty of Sciences, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
Eduardo Salas-EspejoDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology I, Faculty of Sciences, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
Kreete LüllInstitute of Genomics, Estonian Genome Centre, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
Analuce Canha-GouveiaDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology I, Faculty of Sciences, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
Laura Antequera PérezDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology I, Faculty of Sciences, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
Juan FontesInstituto de Investigación Biosanitaria Ibs.GRANADA, Granada, Spain.
Andres SalumetsCompetence Centre On Health Technologies, Tartu, Estonia.
Reidar AndresonInstitute of Genomics, Estonian Genome Centre, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
Oliver AasmetsInstitute of Genomics, Estonian Genome Centre, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
Estonian Biobank research team
Katrine WhitesonSchool of Biological Sciences, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.
Elin OrgInstitute of Genomics, Estonian Genome Centre, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
Signe AltmäeDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology I, Faculty of Sciences, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndometriosis, defined as the presence of endometrial-like tissue outside of the uterus, is one of the most prevalent gynecological disorders. Although different theories have been proposed, its pathogenesis is not clear. Novel studies indicate that the gut microbiome may be involved in the etiology of endometriosis; nevertheless, the connection between microbes, their dysbiosis, and the development of endometriosis is understudied. This case-control study analyzed the gut microbiome in women with and without endometriosis to identify microbial targets involved in the disease.

methodsA subsample of 1000 women from the Estonian Microbiome cohort, including 136 women with endometriosis and 864 control women, was analyzed. Microbial composition was determined by shotgun metagenomics and microbial functional pathways were annotated using the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) database. Partitioning Around Medoids (PAM) algorithm was performed to cluster the microbial profile of the Estonian population. The alpha- and beta-diversity and differential abundance analyses were performed to assess the gut microbiome (species and KEGG orthologies (KO)) in both groups. Metagenomic reads were mapped to estrobolome-related enzymes' sequences to study potential microbiome-estrogen metabolism axis alterations in endometriosis.

resultsDiversity analyses did not detect significant differences between women with and without endometriosis (alpha-diversity: all p-values > 0.05; beta-diversity: PERMANOVA, both R

conclusionsOur findings do not provide enough evidence to support the existence of a gut microbiome-dependent mechanism directly implicated in the pathogenesis of endometriosis. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest metagenome study on endometriosis conducted to date.

Indexed as

EndometriosisGastrointestinal MicrobiomeAdultCase-Control StudiesCohort StudiesDysbiosisEstoniaFemaleHumansMetagenomicsMiddle AgedYoung AdultEndometriosisEstrobolomeGut microbiotaMetagenomicsMicrobiomeMicrobiotaShotgun sequencing

Identifiers

PMID39020289
PMCPMC11256574

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.