完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位語言
dc.contributor.authorChen, Hui-Meien_US
dc.contributor.authorChang, Tzu-Haoen_US
dc.contributor.authorLin, Feng-Maoen_US
dc.contributor.authorLiang, Chaoen_US
dc.contributor.authorChiu, Chih-Minen_US
dc.contributor.authorYang, Tzu-Lingen_US
dc.contributor.authorYang, Tingen_US
dc.contributor.authorHuang, Chia-Yenen_US
dc.contributor.authorCheng, Yeong-Nanen_US
dc.contributor.authorChang, Yi-Anen_US
dc.contributor.authorChang, Po-Yaen_US
dc.contributor.authorWeng, Shun-Longen_US
dc.date.accessioned2019-04-02T06:00:57Z-
dc.date.available2019-04-02T06:00:57Z-
dc.date.issued2018-12-31en_US
dc.identifier.issn1471-2164en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12864-018-5284-7en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11536/148654-
dc.description.abstractBackgroundOne of the most common and recurrent vaginal infections is bacterial vaginosis (BV). The diagnosis is based on changes to the normal vaginal microbiome; however, the normal microbiome appears to differ according to reproductive status and ethnicity, and even among individuals within these groups. The Amsel criteria and Nugent score test are widely used for diagnosing BV; however, these tests are based on different criteria, and so may indicate distinct changes in the vaginal microbial community. Nevertheless, few studies have compared the results of these test against metagenomics analysis.MethodsVaginal flora samples from 77 participants were classified according to the Amsel criteria and Nugent score test. The microbiota composition was analyzed using 16S ribosome RNA gene amplicon sequencing. Bioinformatics analysis and multivariate statistical analysis were used to evaluate the microbial diversity and function.ResultsOnly 3 % of the participants diagnosed BV negative using the Amsel criteria (A-) were BV-positive according to the Nugent score test (N+), while over half of the BV-positive patients using the Amsel criteria (A+) were BV-negative according to the Nugent score test (N-). Thirteen genera showed significant differences in distribution among BV status defined by BV tests (e.g., A-N-, A+N- and A+N+). Variations in the four most abundant taxa, Lactobacillus, Gardnerella, Prevotella, and Escherichia, were responsible for most of this dissimilarity. Furthermore, vaginal microbial diversity differed significantly among the three groups classified by the Nugent score test (N-, N+, and intermediate flora), but not between the Amsel criteria groups. Numerous predictive microbial functions, such as bacterial chemotaxis and bacterial invasion of epithelial cells, differed significantly among multiple BV test, but not between the A- and A+ groups.ConclusionsMetagenomics analysis can greatly expand our current understanding of vaginal microbial diversity in health and disease. Metagenomics profiling may also provide more reliable diagnostic criteria for BV testing.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.titleVaginal microbiome variances in sample groups categorized by clinical criteria of bacterial vaginosisen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12864-018-5284-7en_US
dc.identifier.journalBMC GENOMICSen_US
dc.citation.volume19en_US
dc.citation.issue10en_US
dc.contributor.department生物科技學系zh_TW
dc.contributor.department生物資訊及系統生物研究所zh_TW
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Biological Science and Technologyen_US
dc.contributor.departmentInstitude of Bioinformatics and Systems Biologyen_US
dc.identifier.wosnumberWOS:000454632500013en_US
dc.citation.woscount0en_US
顯示於類別:期刊論文