Altmetric

Comparison of vaginal microbiota sampling techniques: cytobrush versus swab

File Description SizeFormat 
Mitra_Vaginal_microbiota_sampling_techniques_SREP-17-24181Revision_submitted.docxAccepted version139.62 kBMicrosoft WordView/Open
s41598-017-09844-4.pdfPublished version2.72 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
Title: Comparison of vaginal microbiota sampling techniques: cytobrush versus swab
Authors: Mitra, A
Mahajan, V
Macintyre, D
Lee, Y
Smith, A
Marchesi, J
Lyons, D
Bennett, P
Kyrgiou, M
Item Type: Journal Article
Abstract: Evidence suggests the vaginal microbiota (VM) may influence risk of persistent Human Papillomavirus (HPV) infection and cervical carcinogenesis. Established cytology biobanks, typically collected with a cytobrush, constitute a unique resource to study such associations longitudinally. It is plausible that compared to rayon swabs; the most commonly used sampling devices, cytobrushes may disrupt biofilms leading to variation in VM composition. Cervico-vaginal samples were collected with cytobrush and rayon swabs from 30 women with high-grade cervical precancer. Quantitative PCR was used to compare bacterial load and Illumina MiSeq sequencing of the V1-V3 regions of the 16S rRNA gene used to compare VM composition. Cytobrushes collected a higher total bacterial load. Relative abundance of bacterial species was highly comparable between sampling devices (R2 = 0.993). However, in women with a Lactobacillus-depleted, high-diversity VM, significantly less correlation in relative species abundance was observed between devices when compared to those with a Lactobacillus species-dominant VM (p = 0.0049). Cytobrush and swab sampling provide a comparable VM composition. In a small proportion of cases the cytobrush was able to detect underlying high-diversity community structure, not realized with swab sampling. This study highlights the need to consider sampling devices as potential confounders when comparing multiple studies and datasets.
Issue Date: 29-Aug-2017
Date of Acceptance: 31-Jul-2017
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/50313
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09844-4
ISSN: 2045-2322
Publisher: Nature Publishing Group
Journal / Book Title: Scientific Reports
Volume: 7
Copyright Statement: This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as 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. Te images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. © The Author(s) 2017
Sponsor/Funder: British Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology
Imperial College Healthcare Charity
Medical Research Council (MRC)
Medical Research Council (MRC)
Genesis Research Trust
Imperial College Healthcare Charity
Funder's Grant Number: N/A
7114/R17R
MR/L009226/1
MR/L009226/1
01020
Publication Status: Published
Article Number: 9802
Appears in Collections:Division of Surgery
Faculty of Medicine



Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Creative Commonsx