Association between polycystic ovary syndrome and the vaginal microbiome: A case‐control study

Background Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is the most common endocrinopathy in women of reproductive age. Some evidence suggests that dysbiosis of the gut microbiota could be associated with PCOS clinical parameters, but little is known for the association between vaginal microbiome and PCOS. Obje...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical endocrinology (Oxford) 2020-07, Vol.93 (1), p.52-60
Hauptverfasser: Hong, Xiang, Qin, Pengfei, Huang, Kaiping, Ding, Xiaoling, Ma, Jun, Xuan, Yan, Zhu, Xiaoyue, Peng, Danhong, Wang, Bei
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is the most common endocrinopathy in women of reproductive age. Some evidence suggests that dysbiosis of the gut microbiota could be associated with PCOS clinical parameters, but little is known for the association between vaginal microbiome and PCOS. Objective To determine differences in the vaginal microbiome between women with PCOS and healthy control women. Research design and methods In this case‐control study, the women with newly diagnosed PCOS (n = 39) and healthy controls (n = 40) were included from the hospital and maternal and child health centre, respectively. The vaginal swabs were collected, and microbiome structures were identified by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. The screening values for potential bacteria biomarker for PCOS were assessed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve method. Results There was significant difference in vaginal bacterial structures between PCOS and healthy control women. The vaginal bacterial species in the PCOS group were more diverse than the control group (Simpson index for PCOS group vs. control group: median 0.49 vs. 0.80, P = .008; Shannon index: median 1.07 vs. 0.44, P = .003; Chao1 index: median 85.12 vs. 66.13, P 
ISSN:0300-0664
1365-2265
DOI:10.1111/cen.14198