Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/40702
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributorSistema FMUSP-HC: Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (FMUSP) e Hospital das Clínicas da FMUSP
dc.contributor.authorCOSTA, A. C. da
dc.contributor.authorMORON, A. F.
dc.contributor.authorFORNEY, L. J.
dc.contributor.authorLINHARES, I. M.
dc.contributor.authorSABINO, E.
dc.contributor.authorCOSTA, S. F.
dc.contributor.authorMENDES-CORREA, M. C.
dc.contributor.authorWITKIN, S. S.
dc.date.accessioned2021-06-17T13:52:49Z-
dc.date.available2021-06-17T13:52:49Z-
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.citationBJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, v.128, n.6, p.976-982, 2021
dc.identifier.issn1470-0328
dc.identifier.urihttps://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/40702-
dc.description.abstractObjective To determine the presence and identity of extracellular bacteriophage (phage) families, genera and species in the vagina of pregnant women. Design Descriptive, observational cohort study. Setting Sao Paulo, Brazil. Population Pregnant women at 21-24 weeks' gestation. Methods Vaginal samples from 107 women whose vaginal microbiome and pregnancy outcomes were previously determined were analysed for phages by metagenomic sequencing. Main outcome measures Identification of phage families, genera and species. Results Phages were detected in 96 (89.7%) of the samples. Six different phage families were identified: Siphoviridae in 69.2%, Myoviridae in 49.5%, Microviridae in 37.4%, Podoviridae in 20.6%, Herelleviridae in 10.3% and Inviridae in 1.9% of the women. Four different phage families were present in 14 women (13.1%), three families in 20 women (18.7%), two families in 31 women (29.1%) and one family in 31 women (29.1%). The most common phage species detected wereBacillusphages in 48 (43.6%),Escherichiaphages in 45 (40.9%),Staphylococcusphages in 40 (36.4%),Gokushovirusin 33 (30.0%) andLactobacillusphages in 29 (26.4%) women. In a preliminary exploratory analysis, there were no associations between a particular phage family, the number of phage families present in the vagina or any particular phage species and either gestational age at delivery or the bacterial community state type present in the vagina. Conclusions Multiple phages are present in the vagina of most mid-trimester pregnant women. Tweetable abstract Bacteriophages are present in the vagina of most pregnant women.eng
dc.description.sponsorshipBill and Melinda Gates FoundationBill & Melinda Gates Foundation
dc.description.sponsorshipBrazilian Ministry of Health (DECIT)
dc.description.sponsorshipBrazilian National Research Council (CNPq)Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPQ) [401626/2013-0]
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherWILEYeng
dc.relation.ispartofBjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
dc.rightsrestrictedAccesseng
dc.subjectBacteriophageeng
dc.subjectpregnancyeng
dc.subjectvaginal microbiomeeng
dc.subject.otherhuman gut viromeeng
dc.subject.otherlactobacillus phageseng
dc.subject.otherbacterialeng
dc.subject.otheracquisitioneng
dc.subject.otherviruseseng
dc.titleIdentification of bacteriophages in the vagina of pregnant women: a descriptive studyeng
dc.typearticleeng
dc.rights.holderCopyright WILEYeng
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/1471-0528.16528
dc.identifier.pmid32970908
dc.subject.wosObstetrics & Gynecologyeng
dc.type.categoryoriginal articleeng
dc.type.versionpublishedVersioneng
hcfmusp.author.externalFORNEY, L. J.:Univ Idaho, Dept Biol Sci, Moscow, ID 83843 USA; Univ Idaho, Inst Bioinformat & Evolutionary Studies, Moscow, ID 83843 USA
hcfmusp.description.beginpage976
hcfmusp.description.endpage982
hcfmusp.description.issue6
hcfmusp.description.volume128
hcfmusp.origemWOS
hcfmusp.origem.idWOS:000576025500001
hcfmusp.origem.id2-s2.0-85092192167
hcfmusp.publisher.cityHOBOKENeng
hcfmusp.publisher.countryUSAeng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceAbeles SR, 2015, PLOS ONE, V10, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0134941eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceAbeles SR, 2014, ISME J, V8, P1753, DOI 10.1038/ismej.2014.31eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceBlanco-Picazo P, 2020, SCI REP-UK, V10, DOI 10.1038/s41598-020-63432-7eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceBreitbart M, 2005, BIOTECHNIQUES, V39, P729, DOI 10.2144/000112019eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceCarroll-Portillo A, 2019, MICROORGANISMS, V7, DOI 10.3390/microorganisms7120625eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceCherpes TL, 2003, CLIN INFECT DIS, V37, P319, DOI 10.1086/375819eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceda Costa AC, 2019, VIRUS GENES, V55, P332, DOI 10.1007/s11262-019-01648-0eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceDiGiulio DB, 2015, P NATL ACAD SCI USA, V112, P11060, DOI 10.1073/pnas.1502875112eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceElovitz MA, 2019, NAT COMMUN, V10, DOI 10.1038/s41467-019-09285-9eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceEskew AM, 2020, BJOG-INT J OBSTET GY, V127, P208, DOI 10.1111/1471-0528.15951eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceGosmann C, 2017, IMMUNITY, V46, P29, DOI 10.1016/j.immuni.2016.12.013eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceHannigan GD, 2015, MBIO, V6, DOI 10.1128/mBio.01578-15eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceKilic AO, 2001, CLIN DIAGN LAB IMMUN, V8, P31, DOI 10.1128/CDLI.8.1.31-39.2001eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceLaganenka L, 2019, MBIO, V10, DOI 10.1128/mBio.01884-19eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceLerminiaux NA, 2019, CAN J MICROBIOL, V65, P34, DOI 10.1139/cjm-2018-0275eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceLi SK, 2012, CLIN MICROBIOL INFEC, V18, P1126, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2011.03690.xeng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceLim ES, 2015, NAT MED, V21, P1228, DOI 10.1038/nm.3950eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceMacIntyre DA, 2015, SCI REP-UK, V5, DOI 10.1038/srep08988eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceMills S, 2013, GUT MICROBES, V4, P4, DOI 10.4161/gmic.22371eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceMinot S, 2011, GENOME RES, V21, P1616, DOI 10.1101/gr.122705.111eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceNorman JM, 2015, CELL, V160, P447, DOI 10.1016/j.cell.2015.01.002eng
hcfmusp.relation.referencePavlova SI, 2000, MUTAT RES-GEN TOX EN, V466, P57, DOI 10.1016/S1383-5718(00)00003-6eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceRascovan N, 2016, ANNU REV MICROBIOL, V70, P125, DOI 10.1146/annurev-micro-102215-095431eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceSalmond GPC, 2015, NAT REV MICROBIOL, V13, P777, DOI 10.1038/nrmicro3564eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceWitkin SS, 2017, BJOG-INT J OBSTET GY, V124, P606, DOI 10.1111/1471-0528.14390eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceWitkin SS, 2019, MBIO, V10, DOI 10.1128/mBio.02242-19eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceWylie KM, 2018, AM J OBSTET GYNECOL, V219, DOI 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.04.048eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceWylie KM, 2014, BMC BIOL, V12, DOI 10.1186/s12915-014-0071-7eng
dc.description.indexMEDLINEeng
dc.identifier.eissn1471-0528
hcfmusp.citation.scopus10-
hcfmusp.scopus.lastupdate2024-03-29-
Appears in Collections:

Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MIP
Departamento de Moléstias Infecciosas e Parasitárias - FM/MIP

Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICHC
Instituto Central - HC/ICHC

Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/46
LIM/46 - Laboratório de Parasitologia Médica

Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/49
LIM/49 - Laboratório de Protozoologia

Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/52
LIM/52 - Laboratório de Virologia

Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/58
LIM/58 - Laboratório de Ginecologia Estrutural e Molecular


Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
art_COSTA_Identification_of_bacteriophages_in_the_vagina_of_pregnant_2021.PDF
  Restricted Access
publishedVersion (English)378.49 kBAdobe PDFView/Open Request a copy

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