ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2025
Toward accurate vaginal microbiome profiling: protocol, bioinformatics, and core microbiota characterisation.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Vaginal microbiome composition in pregnant and non-pregnant women: community structure, population variation, clinical impact, and metagenomics approaches.Infection and immunity · 2026Review
- Role of bacterial dysbiosis in infertility: the BIOME study protocol for a Danish multicentre prospective observational cohort study.BMJ open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRising demand for assisted reproductive technologies (ART) with limited improvements in success rates has driven interest in the impact of the vaginal microbiome on fertility outcomes. In order to fully examine the relationship between the vaginal microbiome and fertility outcomes, methodologies and technological developments must be standardised and benchmarked to provide the most accurate assessment of microbial population representation.
methodsThis study sought to investigate the utility of 16S sequencing and bioinformatic approaches using nanopore sequencing to characterize core vaginal microbiota in a healthy Australian cohort of reproductive-age women.
resultsOptimisation and comparison of different PCR strategies for whole 16S amplification was undertaken, along with the generation of bioinformatic analysis strategies. Initial qPCR identified the 27F-YM (MIX) primer as the most sensitive for C. trachomatis. However, nanopore sequencing revealed no detectable C. trachomatis across all six samples. Among the bioinformatic tools, Porechop with NanoCLUST most accurately identified microbial presence. Community state type (CST) I-characterised by Lactobacillus crispatus dominance-was identified as the most common CST (66%), aligning with patterns of a healthy vaginal microbiome.
conclusionThe findings highlight a Lactobacillus-rich microbiome as the most common among healthy females; however, further refinement-potentially through a metagenomics approach-is recommended to address 16S rRNA primer limitations to enable improved accuracy of microbial detection for the vaginal microbiome.
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.