À propos de cet article

Citez

Fig. 1.

Genus-level vaginal microbiome compositions in women of control group and PID patients. Data for minor orders with a relative abundance < 1% are not shown.
Genus-level vaginal microbiome compositions in women of control group and PID patients. Data for minor orders with a relative abundance < 1% are not shown.

Fig. 2.

Boxplot of Species richness indices.A) Ace (p = 0.274), B) Chao1 (p = 0.289), C) Jackknife (p = 0.267) indices and D) The number of OTUs (p = 0.299) reflects the diversity of OTU in samples. Bars indicate the median, and the hinges represent the lower and upper quartiles. In panels (A-D), no statistically significant differences were observed between the normal control women and PID patients. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to determine the species richness.
Boxplot of Species richness indices.A) Ace (p = 0.274), B) Chao1 (p = 0.289), C) Jackknife (p = 0.267) indices and D) The number of OTUs (p = 0.299) reflects the diversity of OTU in samples. Bars indicate the median, and the hinges represent the lower and upper quartiles. In panels (A-D), no statistically significant differences were observed between the normal control women and PID patients. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to determine the species richness.

Fig. 3.

Boxplot of Species diversity indices.NP Shannon (p = 0.251), Shannon (p = 0.091), Simpson (p = 0.007), Phylogenetic diversity (p = 0.373) reflect the diversity of OTU in samples. Bars indicate the median, and the hinges represent the lower and upper quartiles. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to determine the diversity index. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01
Boxplot of Species diversity indices.NP Shannon (p = 0.251), Shannon (p = 0.091), Simpson (p = 0.007), Phylogenetic diversity (p = 0.373) reflect the diversity of OTU in samples. Bars indicate the median, and the hinges represent the lower and upper quartiles. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to determine the diversity index. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01

Fig. 4.

Beta diversity of microbial communities based on Jensen-Shannon divergence, Bray-Curtis, Generalized UniFrac, and UniFrac.A) PCoA plots were produced as an ellipse in two dimensions based on a 95% confidence interval. B) PCoA plots were also presented in 3D. The blue/purple color indicates normal control women, and the light green/red color indicates PID patients, respectively. C) Permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) results demonstrated the beta set-significance between the PID patient and normal control women groups. **p < 0.01.
Beta diversity of microbial communities based on Jensen-Shannon divergence, Bray-Curtis, Generalized UniFrac, and UniFrac.A) PCoA plots were produced as an ellipse in two dimensions based on a 95% confidence interval. B) PCoA plots were also presented in 3D. The blue/purple color indicates normal control women, and the light green/red color indicates PID patients, respectively. C) Permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) results demonstrated the beta set-significance between the PID patient and normal control women groups. **p < 0.01.

Fig. 5.

Clustering using the Unweighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic mean (UPGMA).
Clustering using the Unweighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic mean (UPGMA).

Fig. 6.

Taxonomic abundance with an LDA effect size of more than 5.
Taxonomic abundance with an LDA effect size of more than 5.

Fig. 7.

The relative level of organic acids in normal control women and PID patients. In the PID patient group, lactate was significantly decreased compared to the control group, whereas the concentrations of 4-hydroxyphenylacetate and 2-hydroxylsovalerate were significantly increased. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
The relative level of organic acids in normal control women and PID patients. In the PID patient group, lactate was significantly decreased compared to the control group, whereas the concentrations of 4-hydroxyphenylacetate and 2-hydroxylsovalerate were significantly increased. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

Distributions of bacterial community at different taxonomic levels (phylum, class, order, and family).

PhylumCon.PIDClassCon.PIDOrderCon.PIDFamilyCon.PID
Lactobacillaceae63.735.8
Lactobacillales74.550.2Enterococcaceae  8.113.4
Firmicutes79.456.9Bacilli77.753.7Streptococcaceae  2.6     0
Bacillales  3.1  3.4Staphylococcaceae  3.1  3.1
Tissierellia  1.0  1.5Tissierellales  1.0  1.5Peptoniphilaceae  1.0  1.5
Actinobacteria13.023.2Actinobacteria10.716.7Bifidobacteriales  9.815.8Bifidobacteriaceae  9.815.8
Coriobacteriia  2.3  6.6Coriobacteriales  2.3  6.6Coriobacteriaceae  2.3  6.6
Gammaproteobacteria  4.111.0Pseudomonadales  2.7  1.5Moraxellaceae  2.4     0
Proteobacteria  4.612.8Enterobacterales  1.4  9.4Enterobacteriaceae     0  9.2
Betaproteobacteria     0  1.6Burkholderiales     0  1.6Oxalobacteraceae     0  1.3
Bacteroidetes  1.4  4.7Bacteroidia  1.3  4.6Bacteroidales  1.3  4.6Prevotellaceae  1.2  3.7
Fusobacteria  1.2  2.4Fusobacteria  1.2  2.4Fusobacteriales  1.2  2.4Leptotrichiaceae  1.2  2.2

Identification of microbes using STD multiplex PCR and culture method for PID patients.

No.STD PCR methodCulture method
MHUPUUGVCTNGTVCA
  1++
  2++++
  3++
  4++
  5++
  6++
  7++
  8+++++
  9+++
10++
11++++
12+++Staphylococcus aureus
13Streptococcus pyogens
14+
15+++Pseudomonas koreensis
16++++
17+
18
19+
20++
21++
22+Candida albicans
23+Escherichia coli
24++
25+++
26+
27+
28+Candida albicans
29
30+Pseudomonas putida
31+Candida albicans
32++
33+++
34+Escherichia coli
35++
36+
37+
38+
39++
40+
41++

The Kruskal-Wallis H tests and LEfSe analysis of the associations between normal control women and PID patients.

Taxon rankTaxon namep-valueLDAeffect sizeControl(%)PID patients(%)
PhylumFirmicutes0.043645.0991679.3856.87
Saccharibacteria_TM70.022543.257350.420.02
ClassBacilli0.040895.1269377.7453.65
Saccharimonas_c0.022543.210940.420.02
Lactobacillales0.040895.1360274.5250.17
OrderSaccharimonas_o0.022543.243450.420.02
Propionibacteriales0.006282.909450.240.13
Lactobacillaceae0.013775.1594863.7035.76
Moraxellaceae0.045934.051262.400.68
FamilyPseudomonadaceae0.002723.568340.280.83
Saccharimonas_f0.022543.238830.420.02
Propionibacteriaceae0.006282.914430.240.12
Yersiniaceae0.049972.847090.060.16
Lactobacillus0.028815.1293361.0334.92
Gardnerella0.027064.549758.3613.89
Lactobacillaceae_uc0.001283.983292.670.84
Pseudomonas0.002723.544280.280.83
Parvimonas0.004453.312570.000.50
GenusEnterobacteriaceae_uc0.013553.293970.150.50
AF125206_g0.022543.251110.420.02
Megasphaera0.033623.044890.140.37
Yersinia0.049972.851660.060.16
Cutibacterium0.013112.851570.190.11
Actinotignum0.022872.502000.060.00

Clinical profiles of PID patients (n = 41) and women from control group (n = 33).

GroupAge (years)(mean ± SD)Parity(mean ± SD)Body mass index(mean ± SD)SymptomNumber of women%
PID patients35.5 ± 2.43.3 ± 0.229.5 ± 6.9Foul odor (Fish and rotten)2561.0
Itching and burning sensation1126.8
Abnormal color of discharge512.2
Total41100
Control group39.4 ± 3.23.1 ±0.230.1 ± 4.3No observable abnormality33100
Total33100
eISSN:
2544-4646
Langue:
Anglais
Périodicité:
4 fois par an
Sujets de la revue:
Life Sciences, Microbiology and Virology