Comparative measurement of D- and L-lactic acid isomers in vaginal secretions: association with high-grade cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_MAGALHAES_Comparative_measurement_of_D_and_Llactic_acid_isomers_2022.PDF (690.55 KB)
Citações na Scopus
0
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2022
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
Autores
MAGALHAES, Christina Cordeiro Benevides de
MASULLO, Lais Farias
ELEUTERIO, Renata Mirian Nunes
WITKIN, Steven S.
JR, Jose Eleuterio
Citação
ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS, v.305, n.2, p.373-377, 2022
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Purpose Identification of low-cost protocols to identify women at elevated susceptibility to develop cervical intra-epithelial abnormalities would aid in more individualized monitoring. We evaluated whether quantitation of the D- and L-lactic acid isomers in vaginal secretions could differentiate women with normal cervical epithelia from those with a low (LSIL) or high (HSIL) grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or with cervical cancer. Methods Vaginal samples, collected from 78 women undetgoing cervical colposcopy and biopsy, were tested for pH, bacterial composition by Gram stain (Nugent score) and concentrations of D- and L-lactic acid by a colorimetric assay. Results Subsequent diagnosis was 23 women with normal cervical epithelium, 10 with LSIL, 43 with HSIL and 2 with cervical cancer. Vaginal pH and Nugent score were comparable in all subject groups. The concentration of L-lactic acid, but not D-lactic acid, as well as the L/D-lactic acid ratio, were significantly elevated (p < 0.01) in women with HSIL and cervical cancer. Conclusion Comparative measurement of vaginal D- and L-lactic acid isomers may provide a low-cost alternative to identification of women with an elevated susceptibility to cervical abnormalities.
Palavras-chave
Lactic acid isomers, Squamous intraepithelial lesions, Cervix uteri, Vagina
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/46209
Referências
  1. Borgogna JC, 2020, BJOG-INT J OBSTET GY, V127, P182, DOI 10.1111/1471-0528.15981
  2. Bornstein J, 2012, OBSTET GYNECOL, V120, P166, DOI 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318254f90c
  3. Castle Philip E, 2003, J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr, P29
  4. Darragh TM, 2012, J LOW GENIT TRACT DI, V16, P205, DOI 10.1097/PGP.0b013e31826916c7
  5. Giraldo, 2020, DST J BRAS DOEN AS S, V32, P1
  6. Herfs M, 2012, P NATL ACAD SCI USA, V109, P10516, DOI 10.1073/pnas.1202684109
  7. Kwasniewski W, 2018, ONCOL LETT, V16, P7035, DOI 10.3892/ol.2018.9509
  8. Lee YH, 2020, DIAGNOSTICS, V10, DOI 10.3390/diagnostics10121013
  9. Linhares IM, 2019, CURR INFECT DIS REP, V21, DOI 10.1007/s11908-019-0686-5
  10. Mitra A, 2015, SCI REP-UK, V5, DOI 10.1038/srep16865
  11. Mitra A, 2016, MICROBIOME, V4, DOI 10.1186/s40168-016-0203-0
  12. Norenhag J, 2020, BJOG-INT J OBSTET GY, V127, P171, DOI 10.1111/1471-0528.15854
  13. NUGENT RP, 1991, J CLIN MICROBIOL, V29, P297, DOI 10.1128/JCM.29.2.297-301.1991
  14. O'Hanlon DE, 2019, BMC MICROBIOL, V19, DOI 10.1186/s12866-019-1388-8
  15. Piyathilake CJ, 2016, CANCER PREV RES, V9, P357, DOI 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-15-0350
  16. Tamarelle J, 2019, CLIN MICROBIOL INFEC, V25, P35, DOI 10.1016/j.cmi.2018.04.019
  17. Watts DH, 2005, J INFECT DIS, V191, P1129, DOI 10.1086/427777
  18. Witkin SS, 2019, MBIO, V10, DOI 10.1128/mBio.02242-19
  19. Witkin SS, 2013, MBIO, V4, DOI 10.1128/mBio.00460-13
  20. Zhao JJ, 2020, CLIN INFECT DIS, V71, P2027, DOI 10.1093/cid/ciaa344

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICHC
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/58
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - ODS/03