Open Access

Bacterial communities in penile skin, male urethra, and vaginas of heterosexual couples with and without bacterial vaginosis

  • Marcela Zozaya1Email author,
  • Michael J. Ferris1, 2,
  • Julia D. Siren3,
  • Rebecca Lillis3,
  • Leann Myers4,
  • M. Jacques Nsuami3,
  • A. Murat Eren5,
  • Jonathan Brown6,
  • Christopher M. Taylor7 and
  • David H. Martin3, 7Email author
Microbiome20164:16

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-016-0161-6

Received: 19 February 2015

Accepted: 17 March 2016

Published: 19 April 2016

Abstract

Background

The epidemiology of bacterial vaginosis (BV) suggests it is sexually transmissible, yet no transmissible agent has been identified. It is probable that BV-associated bacterial communities are transferred from male to female partners during intercourse; however, the microbiota of sexual partners has not been well-studied.

Results

Pyrosequencing analysis of PCR-amplified 16S rDNA was used to examine BV-associated bacteria in monogamous couples with and without BV using vaginal, male urethral, and penile skin specimens. The penile skin and urethral microbiota of male partners of women with BV was significantly more similar to the vaginal microbiota of their female partner compared to the vaginal microbiota of non-partner women with BV. This was not the case for male partners of women with normal vaginal microbiota. Specific BV-associated species were concordant in women with BV and their male partners.

Conclusions

In monogamous heterosexual couples in which the woman has BV, the significantly higher similarity between the vaginal microbiota and the penile skin and urethral microbiota of the male partner, supports the hypothesis that sexual exchange of BV-associated bacterial taxa is common.

Keywords

Bacterial vaginosis Microbiome Sexual transmission Penile skin Urethra Vagina

Background

Bacterial vaginosis (BV) is a leading cause of vaginal infection [1] and the condition is associated with serious sequelae including increased risk of HIV transmission [24], adverse pregnancy outcomes [57], and acquisition of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) [8]. Moreover, antibiotic treatment success rates are low and recurrence rates are high [911]. BV is currently thought to be due to an ecological imbalance in the composition of the vaginal microbiota rather than a classic infection caused by a specific pathogen. BV is characterized by a decrease in the abundance of vaginal Lactobacillus species, which are generally regarded as beneficial, and an increase in non-Lactobacillus species that include Gardnerella vaginalis, Atopobium vaginae, Megasphaera spp., Sneathia spp., Prevotella spp., and many others [1221]. Over the past decade, studies using genetic sequencing analysis of 16S rRNA genes PCR-amplified from vaginal DNA specimens have dramatically increased the number of bacterial species known to inhabit the vaginal environment, many of which have been shown to be highly associated with BV [1221].

Despite decades of study and considerable evidence suggesting that BV may be sexually transmitted, this hypothesis has not been accepted universally [2225]. The most direct evidence for sexual transmission comes from a study of healthy women who developed BV after being inoculated with vaginal secretions from women with BV [26]. Studies of lesbian women also suggest that exchange of vaginal secretions during sexual encounters transmits BV [27]. Large studies of young sexually experienced and inexperienced women have shown that BV is uncommon in inexperienced women [28, 29] and that BV-associated bacteria are absent or rare in sexually unexposed women [30]. Additionally, there is evidence that shows an epidemiological association between heterosexual intercourse and BV [31, 32]. Moreover, G. vaginalis and other potential BV-causative bacteria can be cultivated from the male urethra, the glans penis, the coronal sulcus, and the prepuce [33, 34]. Recent studies employing cultivation-independent analyses confirm that many BV-associated species can also be detected in male penile skin, semen, urethral, and urine specimens [3539]. A recent paper [40] shows that among uncircumcised males, the presence of BV-like flora in the coronal sulcus skin specimens correlates with BV diagnosed by the Nugent score in their sex partners. Based on these studies and our previous study which showed a high degree of similarity between G. vaginalis oligotypes in heterosexual couples [41], it seems probable that sexual exchange of BV-associated bacteria between male and female partners does occur. Such an exchange could potentially induce a change in the composition and abundance of vaginal species leading to BV. Here, we use a pyrosequencing analysis of 16S rRNA genes to examine the diversity, community composition, prevalence, and relative abundance of genital bacteria in monogamous couples. Clinical samples included vaginal specimens of women with Nugent and Amsel score-defined BV and normal vaginal microbiota, as well as penile skin and urethral specimens of their male sexual partners.

Results

Patient population, behavioral and sexually transmitted infection risk factors

The mean age of men and women in the BV-couples group (BV-couples) was 30.7 years for men (SD+/−9.6) and 27.6 years for women (SD+/−6.9). The mean age of men and women in the normal-couples group (normal-couples) was similar to that of the BV-couples (Table 1). The study population was predominantly African-American in both the normal and BV-couples. Based on independent reporting, the mean duration of the relationship between couples ranged from 39.8 to 46.9 months, and this interval did not differ significantly between BV and normal-couples. A past history of STIs, and other STI risk factors, did not differ between normal and BV-couples. Only 54 % of men in the BV-couples group (BV-males) were circumcised, compared to 74 % of men in the normal-couples group (normal-males) (P = 0.057).
Table 1

Demographics and STI risk factors in couples in which the female does or does not have bacterial vaginosis (BV)

 

Women

Men

BV (n = 65)

Normal (n = 31)

P valuea

BV (n = 65)

Normal (n = 65)

P valuea

Mean age, years ± SD

27.3 ± 6.6

28.4 ± 7.7

0.473

30.0 ± 8.4

32.2 ± 12.0

0.295

African-American, n (%)

57 (88 %)

22 (71 %)

0.045

55 (85 %)

24 (77 %)

0.388

Married, n (%)

10 (15 %)

5 (16 %)

0.688

10 (15 %)

5 (16 %)

0.451

History of STD

 Gonorrhea, n (%)

17 (26 %)

7 (23 %)

0.705

17 (26 %)

8 (26 %)

0.971

 Chlamydia, n (%)

29 (45 %)

8 (26 %)

0.077

20 (31 %)

6 (19 %)

0.239

 Trichomonas, n (%)

19 (29 %)

9 (29 %)

0.984

2 (3 %)

1 (3 %)

0.969

Number of sex partners

 ≥2 in last 12 months, n (%)

27 (42 %)

12 (39 %)

0.792

34 (52 %)

18 (58 %)

0.597

 ≥2 in last 60 days, n (%)

2 (3 %)

2 (7 %)

0.592

5 (8 %)

4 (13 %)

0.413

Mean duration of partnershipb, months

39.8

44.7

0.654

46.9

46.3

0.963

Mean number of sexual acts/monthb

 Vaginal intercourse

11.3

12.0

0.683

11.9

14.3

0.406

 Received oral sex

6.0

5.0

0.581

5.7

7.7

0.477

 Performed oral sex

4.5

4.7

0.920

4.8

7.6

0.294

Anal intercourse in last month, n (%)

12 (19 %)

5 (17 %)

0.832

10 (16 %)

3 (10 %)

0.535

Never or rarely use condomsb, n (%)

44 (68 %)

19 (61 %)

0.683

40 (62 %)

20 (65 %)

0.935

Circumcised, n (%)

35 (54 %)

23 (74 %)

0.057

a P values are by Pearson’s chi-square of Fisher’s Exact tests for categorical variables and by t tests for continuous variables

bWith enrolled partner

SD standard deviation, STD sexually transmitted disease

Women in the BV-couples group (BV-women) were more likely to report a past diagnosis of BV compared to women in the normal-couples group (normal-women) (80 vs. 58 %, P = 0.024) (Table 2). The mean Amsel score was 3.64 (SD+/−0.764) for BV-women and 0.28 (SD+/−0.797) for normal-women. Consistent with the diagnosis of BV, significantly more BV-women complained of vaginal discharge and odor (68 and 72 %, respectively) compared to normal-women. BV-women were found to have significantly higher amounts of vaginal secretions on examination compared to normal-women. None of the other variables measured differed between BV and normal-women (Table 2). Additional file 1: Table S1 and Additional file 2: Table S2 show the metadata used to perform these analyses.
Table 2

Medical histories and clinical findings in BV and normal-women

 

Women

BV (n = 65)

Normal (n = 31)

P valuea

Past history of BV, n (%)

52 (80 %)

18 (58 %)

0.024

Mean months since last episode of BV

9.7

5.9

0.332

History of douching, n (%)

22 (34 %)

9 (30 %)b

0.710

History of vaginal products or medications used, n (%)

13 (20 %)

9 (29 %)

0.345

Use of birth control, n (%)

26 (40 %)

14 (45 %)

0.631

Mean number of days since beginning of last menstrual period

25.7

23.5

0.824

Symptoms

 Vaginal discharge, n (%)

44 (68 %)

12 (39 %)

0.007

 Vaginal odor, n (%)

47 (72 %)

7 (23 %)

<0.0001

 Vaginal irritation, n (%)

17 (26 %)

5 (16 %)

0.275

Amount of discharge on examination

 None, scant, n (%)

24 (38 %)

25 (81 %)

<0.0001

 Moderate, n (%)

31 (48 %)

6 (19 %)

 

 Copious, n (%)

9 (14 %)

0 (0 %)

 

Mean Amsel score

3.64

0.28

<0.0001

Mean Nugent score

8.75

0.87

<0.0001

a P values are by Pearson’s chi-square for categorical variables and by t tests for continuous variables

bCalculation based on n = 30

Bacterial diversity in normal and BV specimens

As expected, the vaginal bacterial diversity of BV-women was significantly higher than that of normal-women, irrespective of the diversity metric used (P = 0.001) (Table 3). Likewise, the penile skin diversity of BV-males was significantly higher (P ≤ 0.038) than that of normal-males. However, the difference in penile skin bacterial diversity between BV-males and normal-males was not as great as the difference observed between BV-women and normal-women. In contrast to penile skin and vaginal specimens, the bacterial diversity of urethral specimens did not differ between BV and normal-males (Table 3).
Table 3

Microbial diversity of normal and BV vaginal, penile skin, and urethral specimens

Specimen type

Diversity estimator

BV mean (SD)

Normal mean (SD)

t stat

P value

Vaginal

Chao1

27.4 (9.3)

11.8 (5.9)

8.475

0.001

Vaginal

Observed species

23.2 (7.8)

9.6 (3.5)

9.191

0.001

Vaginal

PD whole tree

3.1 (0.7)

1.4 (0.6)

12.115

0.001

Penile skin

Chao1

38.5 (14.7)

31.1 (11.3)

2.189

0.038

Penile skin

Observed species

28.3 (10.4)

23.2 (7.5)

2.171

0.032

Penile skin

PD whole tree

2.8 (0.9)

2.3 (0.8)

2.284

0.018

Male urethra

Chao1

34.7 (26.3)

34.7 (25.3)

0.007

0.995

Male urethra

Observed species

24.6 (17.7)

26.9 (21.4)

−0.530

0.590

Male urethra

PD whole tree

3.0 (1.5)

3.0 (1.7)

0.015

0.987

SD standard deviation

The relative abundance of BV-associated bacteria was significantly higher in women with BV compared to normal-women (Additional file 3: Table S3). Moreover, many of these BV-associated bacteria were significantly more abundant in penile skin specimens and urethral specimens of BV-males, compared to normal-males.

Effect of monogamous sexual partnerships on genital bacterial community composition

We examined the influence of monogamous sexual partnerships on the composition of genital microbiota within couples (Fig. 1). The results showed that in the case of BV-couples, the penile skin communities of BV-males were significantly more similar to the vaginal communities of their sexual partner, compared to the other (non-partner) women in the study. This was true regardless of whether the BV-males were circumcised (P = 0.0018) or uncircumcised (P = 0.0027) (Fig. 1a). In the case of BV male urethral specimens, only the microbiota of uncircumcised BV-males was significantly more similar to the vaginal microbiota of their partner (P = 0.0015) (Fig. 1). Finally, among normal-couples, neither the penile skin nor the male urethral microbiota were more similar among sexual partners compared to non-partners (Fig. 1b).
Fig. 1

Comparison of unweighted UniFrac distances between the microbiota of sexual partners and non-partners. a BV-couples and b normal-couples. The analyses were stratified by the circumcision status of the male partners and include penile skin and male urethral specimens as indicated. P values are from paired t tests

Principal coordinate analyses showed no clear separation between the penile skin microbiota of circumcised and uncircumcised men, for both BV-males and normal-males (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2

Principal coordinates analysis (PCoA) comparing unweighted UniFrac distances between the microbiota of circumcised (red) and uncircumcised (blue) penile skin specimens from males whose partners have BV or normal vaginal microbiota. ANOSIM P values and R statistic are indicated

Correlation between vaginal OTUs and penile skin and urethral OTUs of sexual partners

Spearman correlation coefficients were used to investigate associations between the most common OTUs in the vagina of BV-women and normal-women and the same OTUs in the penile skin and urethral specimens of their sexual partners (Tables 4 and 5). The majority of OTUs in vaginal and penile skin specimens of BV-couples showed a strong positive correlation. Correlations were only modestly weaker between vaginal and male urethral specimens in the BV-couples. In contrast, correlations among normal-couples were strikingly lower.
Table 4

Correlation of specific OTUs* between vagina, penile skin, and male urethra from BV-couples

1Spearman correlation coefficient. The gradient bar on the right shows the strength of the correlations

Positive correlations (red); negative correlations (green)

2Associations between vagina (VG) and penile skin (PS)

3Associations between vagina and male urethra (UT)

*Only those vaginal OTUs which had a prevalence of ≥30 % among BV-women were included in this analysis

Table 5

Correlation of specific OTUs* between vagina, penile skin and male urethra from normal-couples

1Spearman correlation coefficient. The gradient bar on the right shows the strength of the correlations

Positive correlations (red); negative correlations (green)

2Associations between vagina (VG) and penile skin (PS)

3Associations between vagina and male urethra (UT)

*Only those vaginal OTUs which had a prevalence of ≥30 % among normal-women were included in this analysis

Discussion

While it is well-recognized that BV is associated with sexual activity, few studies provide evidence that BV-associated taxa are transferred during sexual intercourse. A notable outcome of our study, that is consistent with sexual exchange of BV-associated taxa, is that the penile skin microbiota of male partners of women with BV were more similar to the vaginal microbiota of their sexual partner compared to non-partner women who also had BV (Fig. 1). The data for BV-couples indicate that monogamous sexual intercourse, as defined in this study between a male partner and a female partner who has BV, has a homogenizing influence on the genital microbiota of the couple such that the genital microbiota of BV-couples become more similar over time. These results extend the data of Liu et al. [40] who have shown that BV-associated organisms are significantly increased in penile skin of BV-males. Taken together, the data from these two studies strongly support the hypothesis that BV-associated bacteria are sexually transmitted. Moreover, there appeared to be no influence of male circumcision on our findings, as the penile skin microbiota of both circumcised and uncircumcised BV-males was significantly more similar among sexual partners compared to non-partners. In contrast, no similar relationship was found in normal-couples, in either the penile skin or male urethral specimens. The reasons for the lack of significant similarity between normal-couples is unclear. However it seems likely that the high degree of similarity among the vaginal microbiota of normal-women, often predominated by one or two Lactobacillus species, such as L. iners or L. crispatus, decreases the discriminatory power of the analysis. Another possible explanation is that the predominant vaginal bacterial species in normal-women do not persist for an extended period of time in the environment of the penile skin or the male urethra.

Two longitudinal 16S rDNA-based studies have shown that circumcision significantly alters the composition of penile skin microbiota in paired specimens, collected pre- and post-circumcision [38, 42]. In contrast, we did not observe a significant difference in UniFrac distances of microbial communities in circumcised and uncircumcised male penile skin specimens, within either the normal male group or the BV male groups (Fig. 2). Significant differences in study design, study populations, sampling protocols, and analysis methods preclude direct comparisons of our results with those of Price et al. [38] and Liu et al. studies [42]. Price and Liu performed longitudinal studies comparing penile skin specimens before and (1 year) after circumcision, whereas ours was a cross-sectional study comparing groups of circumcised and uncircumcised men. In addition to study design, the characteristics of the female partners also differed between our study and those of Price and Liu [43]. Only 30 % of the regular sex partners of men in the Price and Liu studies had BV by the Nugent criteria [43]. Thus, over the 1-year observation period following circumcision, most of these men were not being continuously exposed to BV and many appear to have lost the bacteria which comprise BV-like microbiomes. In contrast, all of the BV men in our study were having concurrent intercourse with women who had BV. Thus, under this distinctly different condition, our data show that penile skin microbiomes do not differ between men based on circumcision status. Future prospective studies of male partners of women with BV, following successful treatment of the female partner, could be performed to test the hypothesis that circumcised men clear their penile skin of BV-like microbiomes more rapidly than uncircumcised men.

Conclusions

In summary, we found that the penile skin of male partners of women with BV is colonized by many of the same bacterial taxa that are strongly associated with BV. More significantly, we found that the penile skin bacterial communities of male partners of women with BV were significantly more similar to the vaginal communities of their partner’s than to vaginal communities of other BV-women in the study, which strongly suggests that sexual transmission of BV-associated bacteria is a common occurrence. Urethral communities of male BV-partners were similarly related to the vaginal communities of their partners, though it is unclear how contamination of the male urethral swab specimen by penile skin organisms may have influenced this finding. The same similarity between genital microbiota of sexual partners was not seen in couples without BV. Taken together, these findings support the hypotheses that BV-associated bacteria are exchanged during sex and that male carriage of these organisms could contribute to relapses of clinical BV following treatment, and could be the cause of incident BV infection in previously unexposed women.

Methods

Ethics statement

All patients enrolled in this study gave written informed consent to their participation. The study protocol and consent form was approved by the LSU Health Sciences Center Institutional Review Board.

Sample collection and clinical measurements

Couples enrolled in this study were recruited at the New Orleans sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinic. Couples in which the female had BV (BV-couples) were part of a larger cohort study designed to determine the role of genital tract microbiomes on BV treatment failure and relapse following treatment. Data presented here are from the enrollment visit only. Couples in which the female did not have BV (normal-couples) were recruited for the analyses presented here concerning the relationships between male and female partner microbiomes. All women were ≥18 years of age and attended the STD clinic with a partner with whom they had a monogamous sexual relationship for at least 1 month. The exclusion criteria included antibiotic use within the last 28 days, pregnancy, HIV infection, and any concurrent infection requiring either member of the couple to take antibiotics. Five vaginal swabs were collected from each woman: one for wet prep, KOH, and pH, one for Gram staining, one for Trichomonas culture, one for DNA extraction, and one for back-up. A urethral swab and two penile skin swabs were obtained from each male. The penile skin swabs were obtained by swabbing the glans, the coronal sulcus, and the shaft of the penis. The male swabs and the vaginal swabs intended for DNA extraction were placed in tubes containing the AssayAssure™ nucleic acid preservation media (Thermoscientific, Pittsburg, PA). Details on sample collection have been described previously [41]. The female specimens were characterized clinically for BV using Amsel criteria [31] and Nugent scores [44]. For the purpose of this study, the definition of BV required that the woman had a Nugent score of 7–10, and the definition of a normal woman was a Nugent score of 0–3. Based on these criteria, 96 couples were available for analysis including 65 in which the woman had BV and 31 in which the woman was normal. From these, 283 samples were available for analysis (96 vaginal, 94 urethral, and 93 penile skin). We use the terms BV-partners and normal partners to refer to males whose partners had BV and normal vaginal microbiota, respectively.

Molecular methods

DNA extraction was performed using the QIAamp DNA mini kit (vaginal swabs) and QIAamp DNA micro kit (male specimens) (Qiagen Inc., Valencia, CA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. An initial lysis step with 20 mg per milliliter lysozyme was included to improve DNA extraction from Gram-positive bacteria. The DNA obtained from the two penile skin swabs was combined to increase the yield. Bacterial tag-encoded FLX amplicon pyrosequencing analysis of the V4–V6 region of the 16S rRNA gene (530 F: GTGCCAGCMGCNGCGG and 1100R: GGGTTNCGNTCGTTG) was performed by a commercial facility (Research and Testing Laboratory, Lubbock, TX).

Data analysis

Pyrosequencing post-processing was performed by the sequencing facility (http://www.researchandtesting.com/docs/Data_Analysis_Methodology.pdf). In brief, the data was quality-checked and denoised, including chimera checking. Sequences that were less than 200 bases in length, contained one or more ambiguous bases, had mean quality scores below Q25, or had a homopolymer region longer than six nucleotides were excluded from the analysis. The sequence files and mapping file for all samples have been deposited in Figshare (http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1321311). Taxonomic identification and data analysis was performed using an “in house” sequence analysis framework [45] and QIIME [46].

A total of 1,556,072 reads (vagina- 581,169 reads; penile skin- 471, 947 reads; urethra- 502,956 reads) with an average length of 455 ± 85 bases were obtained after pyrosequencing post-processing. The average number of reads per sample was 6053 (vaginal specimens), 5074 (penile skin specimens), and 5350 (urethral specimens). An initial taxonomic assignment of reads was performed using BLAST [47] at 97 % sequence similarity against a local database. The database contained 283 16S rRNA gene sequences, including sequences previously detected in PCR-based surveys of vaginal specimens [12, 14, 15, 4851]. The list of sequences and NCBI reference numbers is available as Additional file 4. The reads that fell under the 97 % threshold, and thus were not matched to the local database sequences, were assigned to operational taxonomic units (OTUs) by the Ribosomal Database Project classifier [52] set at 80 % confidence threshold. A total of 70,793 reads (vagina- 16,523 [2.84 %] reads; penile skin- 13,610 [2.88 %] reads; urethra- 40,660 [8.08 %] reads) were below the 80 % confidence threshold for classification at the genus level and were excluded from further analysis. The taxonomic assignments are shown in Additional file 5: Table S4. Differences in the prevalence of individual taxa, between categories of specimens, were analyzed using Fisher’s exact test.

Analyses of bacterial diversity, as well as the distance measurements between bacterial communities, were performed using QIIME [46] after normalizing to a common sequencing depth. Diversity was measured using the average of ten random subsamples of each bacterial community and three diversity metrics, chao1, PD whole tree, and total OTUs. Distances between bacterial communities were measured using the unweighted UniFrac metric [53]. An unweighted UniFrac distance matrix containing the distance values between all the pairs of specimens in the study was generated using Python scripts within QIIME. To compare the bacterial community distances of sexual partners to the distances of non-partners, the following steps were used: (1) we obtained the UniFrac distance between a man and his sexual partner from the distance matrix. This was referred to as the partner distance; (2) we obtained all the distances between the man in step 1 and each of the other women in the study; (3) we calculated an average value for the distances obtained in step 2 and referred to this value as the non-partner distance; (4) we repeated steps 1, 2, and 3 for every man in the study; (5) we created two columns of paired data, each row containing a distance between a man and his sex-partner, and a distance between that same man and his “non-partner”; (6) we used a paired t test to test the statistical difference between the partner distances and the non-partner distances.

Spearman correlation coefficients were used to assess the correlation of specific organisms at different sites (vaginal, penile skin, and urethra). All organisms present in greater than 30 % of the BV-women and greater than 30 % of the normal-women were separately selected for this analysis. Correlation analyses for vaginal and penile skin and vaginal and urethral specimens were compared using z statistics following Fisher’s transformation. All analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.3.

Availability of supporting data

The sequence files and mapping file for all the samples included in this study have been deposited in Figshare (http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1321311).

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by National Institute of Health Grant R01 AI079071-01A1.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Children’s Hospital of New Orleans
(2)
Department of Pediatrics, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center
(3)
Department of Internal Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center
(4)
Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Tulane School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine
(5)
Marine Biological Laboratory, JBPC
(6)
Rally Software
(7)
Department of Microbiology Immunology and Parasitology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center

References

  1. Hillier SL, Marrazzo JM, Holmes KK. Bacterial vaginosis. In: Holmes KK, Sparling PF, Stamm WE, Piot P, Wasserheit JN, Corey L, Cohen MS, Watts DH, editors. Sexually transmitted diseases. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2008. p. 737–68.Google Scholar
  2. Cohen CR, Lingappa JR, Baeten JM, Ngayo MO, Spiegel CA, Hong T, et al. Bacterial vaginosis associated with increased risk of female-to-male HIV-1 transmission: a prospective cohort analysis among African couples. PLoS Med. 2012;9(6):e1001251. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001251.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Cu-Uvin S, Hogan JW, Caliendo AM, Harwell J, Mayer KH, Carpenter CC. Association between bacterial vaginosis and expression of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 RNA in the female genital tract. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;33:894–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Sha BE, Zariffard MR, Wang QJ, Chen HY, Bremer J, Cohen MH, et al. Female genital-tract HIV load correlates inversely with Lactobacillus species but positively with bacterial vaginosis and Mycoplasma hominis. J Infect Dis. 2005;191:25–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Hill GB. Preterm birth: associations with genital and possibly oral microflora. Ann Periodontol. 1998;3:222–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Meis PJ, Goldenberg RL, Mercer B, Moawad A, Das A, McNellis D, et al. The preterm prediction study: significance of vaginal infections. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;173:1231–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Onderdonk AB, Lee ML, Lieberman E, Delaney ML, Tuomala RE. Quantitative microbiologic models for preterm delivery. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41:1073–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Brotman RM, Klebanoff MA, Nansel TR, Yu KF, Andrews WW, Zhang J, et al. Bacterial vaginosis assessed by gram stain and diminished colonization resistance to incident gonococcal, chlamydial, and trichomonal genital infection. J Infect Dis. 2010;202:1907–15.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Hanson JM, McGregor JA, Hillier SL, Eschenbach DA, Kreutner AK, Galask RP, et al. Metronidazole for bacterial vaginosis. A comparison of vaginal gel vs. oral therapy. J Reprod Med. 2000;45(11):889–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Livengood CH, McGregor JA, Soper DE, Newton E, Thomason JL. Bacterial vaginosis: efficacy and safety of intravaginal metronidazole treatment. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;170:759–64.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hillier SL, Lipinski C, Briselden AM, Eschenbach DA. Efficacy of intravaginal 0.75 % metronidazole gel for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis. Obstet Gynecol. 1993;81:963–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hyman RW, Fukushima M, Diamond L, Kumm J, Giudice LC, Davis RW. Microbes on the human vaginal epithelium. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102:7952–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Verhelst R, Verstraelen H, Claeys G, Verschraegen G, Delanghe J, Van Simaey L, et al. Cloning of 16S rRNA genes amplified from normal and disturbed vaginal microflora suggests a strong association between Atopobium vaginae, Gardnerella vaginalis and bacterial vaginosis. BMC Microbiol. 2004;4:16.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Zhou X, Brown CJ, Abdo Z, Davis CC, Hansmann MA, Joyce P, et al. Differences in the composition of vaginal microbial communities found in healthy Caucasian and black women. ISME J. 2007;1:121–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Oakley BB, Fiedler TL, Marrazzo JM, Fredricks DN. Diversity of human vaginal bacterial communities and associations with clinically defined bacterial vaginosis. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008;74:4898–909.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Ravel J, Gajer P, Abdo Z, Schneider GM, Koenig SS, McCulle SL, et al. Vaginal microbiome of reproductive-age women. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108 Suppl 1:4680–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Srinivasan S, Hoffman NG, Morgan MT, Matsen FA, Fiedler TL, Hall RW, et al. Bacterial communities in women with bacterial vaginosis: high resolution phylogenetic analyses reveal relationships of microbiota to clinical criteria. PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e37818. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0037818.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Kim TK, Thomas SM, Ho M, Sharma S, Reich CI, Frank JA, et al. Heterogeneity of vaginal microbial communities within individuals. J Clin Microbiol. 2009;47:1181–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Zozaya-Hinchliffe M, Lillis R, Martin DH, Ferris MJ. Quantitative PCR assessments of bacterial species in women with and without bacterial vaginosis. J Clin Microbiol. 2010;48:1812–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Fredricks DN, Fiedler TL, Thomas KK, Oakley BB, Marrazzo JM. Targeted PCR for detection of vaginal bacteria associated with bacterial vaginosis. J Clin Microbiol. 2007;45:3270–6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Ling Z, Kong J, Liu F, Zhu H, Chen X, Wang Y, et al. Molecular analysis of the diversity of vaginal microbiota associated with bacterial vaginosis. BMC Genomics. 2010;11:488.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Forsum U, Hallen A, Larsson PG. Bacterial vaginosis—a laboratory and clinical diagnostics enigma. APMIS. 2005;113:153–61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Forsum U, Holst E, Larsson PG, Vasquez A, Jakobsson T, Mattsby-Baltzer I. Bacterial vaginosis—a microbiological and immunological enigma. APMIS. 2005;113:81–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Larsson PG, Forsum U. Bacterial vaginosis—a disturbed bacterial flora and treatment enigma. APMIS. 2005;113:305–16.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Larsson PG, Bergstrom M, Forsum U, Jacobsson B, Strand A, Wolner-Hanssen P. Bacterial vaginosis. Transmission, role in genital tract infection and pregnancy outcome: an enigma. APMIS. 2005;113:233–45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Gardner HL, Dukes CD. Haemophilus vaginalis vaginitis: a newly defined specific infection previously classified non-specific vaginitis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1955;69:962–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Marrazzo JM, Koutsky LA, Eschenbach DA, Agnew K, Stine K, Hillier SL. Characterization of vaginal flora and bacterial vaginosis in women who have sex with women. J Infect Dis. 2002;185:1307–13.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Fethers KA, Fairley CK, Morton A, Hocking JS, Fehler G, Kennedy LJ, et al. Low incidence of bacterial vaginosis in cohort of young Australian women. Sex Transm Dis. 2011;38:124.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Fethers KA, Fairley CK, Morton A, Hocking JS, Hopkins C, Kennedy LJ, et al. Early sexual experiences and risk factors for bacterial vaginosis. J Infect Dis. 2009;200:1662–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Fethers K, Twin J, Fairley CK, Fowkes FJI, Garland SM, Fehler G, et al. Bacterial vaginosis (BV) candidate bacteria: Associations with BV and behavioural practices in sexually-experienced and inexperienced women. PLoS One. 2012;7(2):e30633. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0030633.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Amsel R, Totten PA, Spiegel CA, Chen KC, Eschenbach D, Holmes KK. Nonspecific vaginitis. Diagnostic criteria and microbial and epidemiologic associations. Am J Med. 1983;74:14–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Muzny CA, Schwebke JR. Suspected heterosexual transmission of bacterial vaginosis without seminal fluid exposure. Sex Transm Dis. 2014;41:58–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Dawson SG, Ison CA, Csonka G, Easmon CSF. Male carriage of Gardnerella vaginalis. Br J Vener Dis. 1982;58:243–5.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Kinghorn GR, Jones BM, Chowdhury FH, Geary I. Balanoposthitis associated with Gardnerella vaginalis infection in men. Br J Vener Dis. 1982;58:127–9.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Nelson DE, Dong Q, Pol BVD, Toh E, Fan B, Katz BP, et al. Bacterial communities of the Coronal Sulcus and Distal Urethra of adolescent males. PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e36298. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036298.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Dong Q, Nelson DE, Toh E, Diao L, Gao X, Fortenberry JD, et al. The microbial communities in male first catch urine are highly similar to those in paired urethral swab specimens. PLoS One. 2011;6(5):e19709. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0019709.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Nelson DE, Van Der Pol B, Dong Q, Revanna KV, Fan B, Easwaran S, et al. Characteristic male urine microbiomes associate with asymptomatic sexually transmitted infection. PLoS One. 2010;5(11):e14116. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014116.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Price LB, Liu CM, Johnson KE, Aziz M, Lau MK, Bowers J, et al. The effects of circumcision on the penis microbiome. PLoS One. 2010;5(1):e8422. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008422.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Weng SL, Chiu CM, Lin FM, Huang WC, Liang C, Yang T, et al. Bacterial communities in semen from men of infertile couples: metagenomic sequencing reveals relationships of seminal microbiota to semen quality. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):e110152. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0110152.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Liu CM, Hungate BA, Toblan AAR, Ravel J, Prodger JL, Serwadda D, et al. Penile microbiota and female partner bacterial vaginosis in Rakai, Uganda. MBio. 2015;6(3):e00589–15. doi:https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00589-15.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Eren AM, Zozaya M, Taylor CM, Dowd SE, Martin DH, Ferris MJ. Exploring the diversity of Gardnerella vaginalis in the genitourinary tract microbiota of monogamous couples through subtle nucleotide variation. PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e26732. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0026732.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Liu CM, Hungate BA, Toblan AAR, Serwadda D, Ravel J, Lester R, et al. Male circumcision significantly reduces prevalence and load of genital anaerobic bacteria. MBio. 2013;4(2):e00076–13. doi:https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00076-13.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Gray RH, Kigozi G, Serwadda D, Makumbi F, Nalugoda F, Watya S, et al. The effects of male circumcision on female partners’ genital tract symptoms and vaginal infections in a randomized trial in Rakai, Uganda. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200:42.e1–7. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2008.07.069.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Nugent RP, Krohn MA, Hillier SL. Reliability of diagnosing bacterial vaginosis is improved by a standardized method of gram stain interpretation. J Clin Microbiol. 1991;29:297–301.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Eren AM, Ferris MJ, Taylor CM. A framework for analysis of metagenomic sequencing data. Pac Symp Biocomput. 2011;16:131–41. http://psb.stanford.edu/psb-online/proceedings/psb11/eren.pdf.
  46. Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, Bittinger K, Bushman FD, Costello EK, et al. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat Methods. 2010;7:335–6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Altschul S, Madden T, Schaeffer A, Zhang J, Zhang Z, Miller W, et al. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res. 1997;25:3389–402.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Fredricks DN, Fiedler TL, Marrazzo JM. Molecular identification of bacteria associated with bacterial vaginosis. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1899–911.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Ferris MJ, Masztal A, Aldridge KE, Fortenberry JD, Fidel PL, Martin DH. Association of Atopobium vaginae, a recently described metronidazole resistant anaerobe, with bacterial vaginosis. BMC Infect Dis. 2004;4:5.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Zozaya-Hinchliffe M, Martin DH, Ferris MJ. Prevalence and abundance of uncultivated Megasphaera-like bacteria in the human vaginal environment. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008;74:1656–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Zhou X, Bent SJ, Schneider MG, Davis CC, Islam MR, Forney LJ. Characterization of vaginal microbial communities in adult healthy women using cultivation-independent methods. Microbiology. 2004;150:2565–73.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Wang Q, Garrity GM, Tiedje JM, Cole JR. Naive Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007;73(16):5261–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Lozupone C, Knight R. UniFrac: a new phylogenetic method for comparing microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005;71:8228–35.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Zozaya et al. 2016

Advertisement