Open AccessQuantification of Gardnerella vaginalis, Atopobium vaginae and Lactobacillus spp. in bacterial vaginosis
Author(s) -
Nedžib Numanović,
Snezana Ribis,
Jelena Čukić,
Dane Nenadić,
Aleksandar Živanović,
Predrag Sazdanović,
Violeta Ninković,
Dejan Baskić
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of infection in developing countries
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.322
H-Index - 49
eISSN - 2036-6590
pISSN - 1972-2680
DOI - 10.3855/jidc.13091
Subject(s) - bacterial vaginosis , gardnerella vaginalis , biology , lactobacillus , microbiology and biotechnology , microbiome , lactobacillus crispatus , bacteria , bioinformatics , genetics
The aim of the study was to investigate prevalence of bacteria most frequently associated with bacterial vaginosis using Amsel’s criteria as well as to quantify these bacteria by real-time PCR and to explore the difference in their quantity between healthy and bacterial vaginosis samples.
Methodology: For classification of vaginal discharge samples Amsel’s criteria have been used. To detect and quantify Gardnerella vaginalis Atopobium vaginae, Lactobacillus spp. and total vaginal microbiome, real-time PCR has been applied.
Results: According to results of our study Amsel’s criteria matched well with real-time PCR diversification of healthy women and women with BV. Nevertheless, real-time PCR has been more sensitive in diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. DNA quantification of bacteria demonstrated that mutual abundance of G.vaginalis and A. vaginae was good bacterial vaginosis marker . On the contrary, Lactobacillus spp. was present in high amount in both healthy and bacterial vaginosis samples, but ratio of investigated bacteria was different between them. In fact, G. vaginalis and A. vaginae comprised only 0.1% of total microbiome in healthy, whereas Lactobacillus spp. took 99.3% of it. Nonetheless, in bacterial vaginosis, G. vaginalis and A. vaginae made up 34.4% of total microbiome, while Lactobacillus spp. was 21.6%.
Conclusions: According to the results of our study real-time PCR analysis was more sensitive in diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis than Amsel’s method, as well as it represented fine tool in making a difference between microbial entities in healthy and bacterial vaginosis samples.