Abstract
Purpose
Subclinical alterations of the vaginal microbiome have been described to be associated with female infertility and may serve as predictors for failure of in vitro fertilization treatment. While large prospective studies to delineate the role of microbial composition are warranted, integrating microbiome information into clinical management depends on economical and practical feasibility, specifically on a short duration from sampling to final results. The currently most used method for microbiota analysis is either metagenomics sequencing or amplicon-based microbiota analysis using second-generation methods such as sequencing-by-synthesis approaches (Illumina), which is both expensive and time-consuming. Thus, additional approaches are warranted to accelerate the usability of the microbiome as a marker in clinical praxis.
Methods
Herein, we used a set of ten selected vaginal swabs from women undergoing assisted reproduction, comparing and performing critical optimization of nanopore-based microbiota analysis with the results from MiSeq-based data as a quality reference.
Results
The analyzed samples carried varying community compositions, as shown by amplicon-based analysis of the V3V4 region of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene by MiSeq sequencing. Using a stepwise procedure to optimize adaptation, we show that a close approximation of the microbial composition can be achieved within a reduced time frame and at a minimum of costs using nanopore sequencing.
Conclusions
Our work highlights the potential of a nanopore-based methodical setup to support the feasibility of interventional studies and contribute to the development of microbiome-based clinical decision-making in assisted reproduction.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The microbiome of the human vagina has deep implications on women’s sexual health by controlling sexually transmitted infections [1, 2] and thereby affecting the female fertility as well [3,4,5]. Recent advances identified a direct association between the urogenital microbiota and the fertility status of women. Thus, women with endometriosis have been found to have a cervicovaginal microbial composition distinguishable from other women [6], while the vaginal microbiota have been shown to distinguish women with infectious infertility from infertile women with non-infectious causes [3]. It has already been a few years since Moreno et al. suggested that the composition of the microbiota of the urogenital tract of women may have implications on fertilization success and pregnancy [7]. The likelihood of achieving a pregnancy after embryo transfer has been shown to be linked to specific microbiota of the vagina [8], with lactobacilli identified as a promoting factor [9]. However, which specifics are beneficial for treatment success in ART is still under debate [10]. Thus, Lactobacillus (L.) iners has been described as predictive of treatment success and suggested as a marker supporting the start of an in vitro fertilization (IVF) trial by Koedooder et al. (2019) in contrast to postponing treatment in case of an unfavorable microbiota composition is present. More recently, Lactobacillus gasseri was associated with successful IVF treatment [11]. Congruently, non-Lactobacillus species are described as non-favorable for the likelihood of achieving a pregnancy after embryo transfer [5, 7, 9, 11].
As given, it appears evident that infertility, the success of its treatment via ART, and the microbial composition are interconnected. Therefore, new, fast, and reliable methods are required to help clinicians decide whether to initiate treatment in a given subject at a given time point. Various methods are currently available for analyzing the microbiota composition based on amplicons or metagenomics sequencing. While metagenomics sequencing is the more elaborate method to describe the microbial composition in depth [12], amplicons are a good and economical approximation of the microbiota if applied accurately [13, 14]. From the perspective of clinical utility, the most used sequencing technique, MiSeq Illumina sequencing, has the disadvantage of long-running sequencings (several days) and high costs and, therefore, is impracticable for small sample sizes. With increased use, nanopore third-generation sequencing is becoming an alternative or complement to next-generation sequencing and has been successfully applied for sequencing nasal and gut microbiota before [15, 16]. Specifically, nanopore sequencing has been determined advantageous for clinical laboratories due to its low cost, rapid turnover times, and limited need of bioinformatic skills [17, 18].
In this line, studies and attempts to analyze the urogenital microbiota have meanwhile also been using nanopore sequencing approaches (e.g., [19, 20]) and nanopore sequencing was stated to be reliable for vaginal [21] and endometrial [22] microbiota analysis. However, those studies lack coverage of the wide variety of the microbial communities in its entirety previously described to exist in the human female urogenital tract, leaving open questions about the precision of the methodical setups.
Objective
We here aim to compare and optimize several strategies for analyzing the cervicovaginal microbiota of patients undergoing in vitro fertilization using the MinION Nanopore sequencer. In doing so, we set a specific focus on covering a broad spectrum of varying vaginal microbial communities. In order to validate our results, we compare the performance of our new strategies to the widely used (e.g., [23,24,25,26]) and recommended [13, 27] amplicon-based microbiota estimation utilizing the hypervariable V3/V4 regions of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene using MiSeq sequencing.
Methods
Patients and ethics
The vaginal swab samples analyzed herein stem from an ongoing study on microbiome influence on IVF success at the University Hospital of Schleswig–Holstein, Germany. The ten samples analyzed within this manuscript were chosen from the large cohort with a focus on encompassing a wide range of different community state types and bacterial communities’ variances. No other criteria were applied when selecting samples.
Sampling
Swabs (Copan UTM®; Universal Transport Medium for viruses, chlamydia, mycoplasma, and ureaplasma) were taken from the posterior fornix of the vagina under speculum visualization. The swab was taken not to be contaminated by contact with the vulva, the speculum, or the gloves of the physician. Swabs were frozen and stored at − 80 °C directly after sampling.
DNA isolation
Swabs were vortexed at highest speed for 1 min. DNA was isolated from 250 µl of the remaining buffer using the Qiagen DNeasy PowerSoil® Kit, following the instructions from the manufacturer’s protocol. Isolated DNA was stored at − 20 °C. We did homogenization after adding the sample and solution C1 using a precellys24 device (Peqlab) at 5000 rpm for 15 s.
Amplicon generation
We used several strategies for generating amplicons for sequencing on different systems. First, amplicons were generated for Illumina short-read sequencing. Therefore, we amplified the V3/V4 region (V3F primer: 5′-CCTACGGGAGGCAGCAG-3′/V4R primer: 5′-GGACTACHVGGGTWTCTAAT-3′) of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene sequences from each isolated sample. All primers contained unique identifier sequences (barcodes) to distinguish between the samples following published methods [28, 29] with an optimized primer design [13] (see Supplementary Table 1 and Supplementary Table 3 for complete primer sequences and PCR conditions).
Subsequently, we generated amplicons for nanopore sequencing. Enabling the use of longer reads obtained from nanopore sequencing, we used primer pairs spanning a longer sequence of the 16S rRNA gene. First, we prepared a nearly full-length 16S rRNA gene amplicon (27F-YM primer: 5′- AGAGTTTGATYMTGGCTCAG -3′/1492R-Y primer: 5 ′- GGTTACCTTGTTAYGACTT -3′; see Supplementary Table 2 for complete primer sequences) as previously described [30, 31]. Secondly, we prepared shorter amplicons using the above-described V3F forward primer and the same 1492R-Y reverse primer. As a comparison, we processed a subset of n = 4 samples with the Nanopore 16S rRNA gene Barcoding Kit (SQK-RAB204), following the manufacturer’s instructions. The 16S rRNA gene Barcoding Kit includes the primers 27F-M and 1429R (https://nanoporetech.com/).
Sequencing
We sequenced the V3/V4 region amplicons on a MiSeq sequencer (Illumina) using the MiSeq Reagent Kit v3 (600 cycles). Longer amplicons of the same samples were sequenced on a MinION (Oxford Nanopore Technologies). The nanopore amplicon sequencing was performed using the Nanopore Rapid PCR Barcoding Kit (SQK-RPB004), following manufacturer’s instructions. The kit provides unique barcodes that allow multiplexing samples and sequencing them in parallel.
Data processing
For Illumina sequences, the raw data were processed using mothur [32] version 1.44.1, following the mothur SOP available online (https://mothur.org/wiki/miseq_sop/) as we did in our recent studies (e.g., [33, 34]). In brief, we removed all sequences with ambiguous bases, a length greater than the amplified fragment, and a homopolymer length greater than 12. The sequences were aligned with the SILVA reference database [35, 36] and chimeras were removed using the vsearch algorithm [37]. We clustered the processed sequences into operational taxonomic units (OTU) with a global identity threshold of 97% or performed classification-based analysis. The species-level classification was performed using STIRRUPS [38]. To evaluate the nanopore amplicon sequences, we ran the same methodology as mentioned above, though adapting the data processing to the respective length of the amplicons.
Statistical analysis
The statistical analysis and graphical visualizations were performed in R [39] version 4.0.3. Following a comparison of the read fraction of taxa, Shannon’s and Simpson’s index was calculated with vegan [40] based on OTU to measure alpha diversity and compare different sequencing approaches. The Friedman test was performed to test for significance, and if significance was reached, pairwise comparisons using Wilcoxon signed rank test with Bonferroni correction were performed. Distance analysis and principal coordinates analysis were carried out based on Bray–Curtis distances of the different samples to measure the beta diversity. Utilizing the R package BoutrosLab.plotting.general [41], heatmaps were created. The clustering was performed using the read fraction of the most abundant taxa and the sequencing approach was included as a covariate.
Results
Here, we aim to test the reliability of Nanopore MinION sequencing as an alternative to the current methods of microbiota sequencing on ten selected vaginal swabs of women undergoing in vitro fertilization. We, therefore, compared the microbial composition as shown by Illumina sequencing using the V3V4 hypervariable regions with three amplicon strategies for nanopore sequencing (Supplementary Fig. 1).
Nanopore sequencing requires improved primer choice to reflect bacterial community composition
As a first approximation to assess the comparability of nanopore and Illumina sequencing results, we choose samples representing a wide range of different community state types [42] and bacterial communities. This includes samples dominated by different Lactobacillus species and samples dominated by species known to influence vaginal health (e.g., Bifidobacterium breve, Chlamydia trachomatis, Gardnerella vaginalis, Sneathia amnii) (Fig. 1). After preliminary evaluating a subset of samples, the 16S rRNA gene Barcoding Kit does not recapitulate Illumina sequencing results by using the universal primer pair 27f/1429R (Supplementary Fig. 1). Hence, we switched to a custom-made degenerated 27f-YM forward and 1429R-Y reverse primer for amplicon generation. Based on this, we compared relative fractions of taxonomic reads between different sequencing strategies. By this approach, we show that all but one major taxon from Illumina sequencing are recapitulated by nanopore sequencing. The exception was C. trachomatis, displaying approximately 50% of reads assigned to sample 139 in Illumina sequencing, which was missing when the degenerated 27f-YM primer was used in nanopore sequencing (Nanoporefull). In contrast, nanopore sequencing using the V3F primer (as used for Illumina sequencing, Nanoporev3) captures a comparable fraction of C. trachomatis reads as Illumina sequencing (Fig. 1, sample number 139).
Dissimilarity-based comparison of the sequencing approaches
We compared alpha and beta diversity measures in order to assess how similar the results of different sequencing strategies are. While Shannon’s diversity index was indicated to differ between sequencing approaches (Fig. 2A, Friedmann test; p = 0.002, post hoc test results given in the figure), we could not identify significant differences between sequencing strategies when using Simpson’s diversity indices (Fig. 2B). We further compared distances between samples based on Bray–Curtis dissimilarity index. Stratifying for the distance between samples from different sequencing strategies, no significant differences are apparent (Fig. 2C). Last, we ran principle coordinates analysis for the entire data set and observed that strategies cluster together for each sample of this study (Fig. 2D).
Microbiome samples from the same individual cluster together independent of the sequencing approach
To clearly visualize the similarity of the different sequencing strategies, we utilized a heatmap plot with hierarchical clustering of community structure based on the relative fraction of reads (Fig. 3). We also show in this case that for all samples, the different sequencing strategies clustered together. However, the length of the dendrogram arms indicates that for sample 139, the distance to the other sequencing strategies of the full-length nanopore sequencing (Nanoporefull), lacking C. trachomatis sequences, is large.
Discussion
It has been suggested that the focus of research on the human microbiome will shift from studies describing the function of the microbiome toward studies employing the microbiota for clinical applications, such as using it as a diagnostic marker [43]. Though the awareness of the importance of the microbiome as an indicator of human health has increased drastically over the last decade, the lack and need for clinical test strategies are still evident [44]. The widely used standard in microbiota analysis from a position of throughput and costs is amplicon-based microbiota analysis [45], primarily using Illumina MiSeq sequencing. This method has great value, especially through the precise and parallel sequencing of a large number of samples. However, Illumina MiSeq sequencing lacks scalability and involves time-consuming procedures, complicating rapid data production. In contrast, due to its scalability, the MinION sequencer runs smaller sample numbers but can produce microbial community profiles within 24 h for individual samples [46].
In reproductive health, the role of the vaginal microbiome for fertility has been assessed [3, 7, 9, 47] and it appears that the microbial composition can add valuable information to the prediction of ART treatment success versus failure [5, 11, 48, 49]. Some previous studies have suggested nanopore sequencing as a reliable methodical solution to determine vaginal and urogenital microbiota in a clinical setting [19,20,21,22]. This study focuses on optimizing strategies to provide a fast and reliable method for describing the broad variety of vaginal microbiota of individual samples in women undergoing in vitro fertilization. As tested first, the 16S rRNA gene Barcoding Kit provided by the company does not provide a sufficient resolution as it fails to identify central bacterial taxa such as Gardnerella vaginalis and Bifidobacterium (Supplementary Fig. 1). This problem is known to be addressed to the classical 27F primer used by a significant fraction of microbiota studies. It has been shown to fail to identify Chlamydia trachomatis as well [13, 31]. Therefore, as suggested before, we have subsequently used a degenerated version of this forward primer (27F-YM) to circumvent this issue [31]. We managed to recapitulate the data produced by the MiSeq sequencing more closely with this approach. However, C. trachomatis still was not detected even with the degenerated 27F-YM primer within the nanopore sequencing data. Particularly, in the given case, it overestimates L. iners when using the Nanoporefull version. This bias is important to consider, as Koedooder et al. suggested a high fraction of L. iners to increase the success chance of embryo implantation [5]. Noteworthy, the respective patient faced a negative outcome from in vitro fertilization (Supplementary Table 4). To achieve higher precision with nanopore sequencing, we used the V3F primer [28, 29] as we did with short-read sequencing [3, 13] instead of the 27F-YM forward primer. Using this setup, we optimized the recapitulation of the microbial community for all samples tested, showing that the use of the MinION third-generation sequencer describes the microbial pattern of vaginal bacterial communities with high accuracy. We want to point out that further improvements to the precision of the herein described methodology may be possible by incorporating the very recently published Emu-algorithm [50]. This approach has been developed for species level classification from Nanopore data and been described to reduce false positive classifications in long-read data [50].
In conclusion from our study, adapting amplicon-based microbiota sequencing of the human vagina on a MinION sequencer provides precise community analysis and a time and cost benefit, which may be relevant for clinical decision making, as it has been pointed out before [17, 18]. Of note, the samples from women with a positive pregnancy test following an embryo transfer (samples 45, 67, and 98; Supplementary Table 4) were colonized with either L. gasseri or L. iners (Fig. 1). Both species have been acknowledged to be positively correlated with treatment success [5, 11]. While we still assume a gap of knowledge in how lactobacilli contribute to vaginal health [51], replenishing Lactobacillus species—as suggested recently [11]—may become a solution to enhance the success of in vitro fertilization. Opening ideas about the diagnostic basis for such planning, we hope to provide a critical methodical step toward using microbiota as a parameter in clinical decision-making.
Data availability
The raw sequencing data can be found at the European Nucleotide Archive under accession number PRJEB53337.
References
Lewis FMT, Bernstein KT, Aral SO. Vaginal microbiome and its relationship to behavior, sexual health, and sexually transmitted diseases. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129(4):643–54. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001932.
Loeper N, Graspeuntner S, Rupp J. Microbiota changes impact on sexually transmitted infections and the development of pelvic inflammatory disease. Microbes Infect. 2018;20(9–10):505–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micinf.2018.02.003.
Graspeuntner S, Bohlmann MK, Gillmann K, Speer R, Kuenzel S, Mark H, et al. Microbiota-based analysis reveals specific bacterial traits and a novel strategy for the diagnosis of infectious infertility. PLoS One. 2018;13(1):e0191047. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191047.29315330.
Zhao C, Wei Z, Yang J, Zhang J, Yu C, Yang A, et al. Characterization of the vaginal microbiome in women with infertility and its potential correlation with hormone stimulation during in vitro fertilization surgery. mSystems. 2020;5(4). https://doi.org/10.1128/mSystems.00450-20..
Koedooder R, Singer M, Schoenmakers S, Savelkoul PHM, Morre SA, de Jonge JD, et al. The vaginal microbiome as a predictor for outcome of in vitro fertilization with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a prospective study. Hum Reprod. 2019;34(6):1042–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dez065.
Chen C, Song X, Wei W, Zhong H, Dai J, Lan Z, et al. The microbiota continuum along the female reproductive tract and its relation to uterine-related diseases. Nat Commun. 2017;8(1):875. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-00901-0.
Moreno I, Codoner FM, Vilella F, Valbuena D, Martinez-Blanch JF, Jimenez-Almazan J, et al. Evidence that the endometrial microbiota has an effect on implantation success or failure. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(6):684–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.09.075.
Wang R, Zhou G, Wu L, Huang X, Li Y, Luo B, et al. The microbial composition of lower genital tract may affect the outcome of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2021;12(2582). https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.729744.
Tomaiuolo R, Veneruso I, Cariati F, D’Argenio V. Microbiota and human reproduction: the case of female infertility. High Throughput. 2020;9(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/ht9020012.
Punzon-Jimenez P, Labarta E. The impact of the female genital tract microbiome in women health and reproduction: a review. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021;38(10):2519–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-021-02247-5.
Okwelogu SI, Ikechebelu JI, Agbakoba NR, Anukam KC. Microbiome compositions from infertile couples seeking in vitro fertilization, using 16S rRNA gene sequencing methods: any correlation to clinical outcomes? Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology. 2021;11(915). https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2021.709372.
Liu YX, Qin Y, Chen T, Lu M, Qian X, Guo X, et al. A practical guide to amplicon and metagenomic analysis of microbiome data. Protein Cell. 2021;12(5):315–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13238-020-00724-8.
Graspeuntner S, Loeper N, Kunzel S, Baines JF, Rupp J. Selection of validated hypervariable regions is crucial in 16S-based microbiota studies of the female genital tract. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):9678. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-27757-8.
Rausch P, Ruhlemann M, Hermes BM, Doms S, Dagan T, Dierking K, et al. Comparative analysis of amplicon and metagenomic sequencing methods reveals key features in the evolution of animal metaorganisms. Microbiome. 2019;7(1):133. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-019-0743-1.
Heikema AP, Horst-Kreft D, Boers SA, Jansen R, Hiltemann SD, de Koning W, et al. Comparison of Illumina versus nanopore 16S rRNA gene sequencing of the human nasal microbiota. Genes (Basel). 2020;11(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/genes11091105.
Shin J, Lee S, Go MJ, Lee SY, Kim SC, Lee CH, et al. Analysis of the mouse gut microbiome using full-length 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing. Sci Rep. 2016;6:29681. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep29681.
Petersen LM, Martin IW, Moschetti WE, Kershaw CM, Tsongalis GJ. Third-generation sequencing in the clinical laboratory: exploring the advantages and challenges of nanopore sequencing. J Clin Microbiol. 2019;58(1). https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01315-19.
Malla MA, Dubey A, Kumar A, Yadav S, Hashem A, Abd Allah EF. Exploring the human microbiome: the potential future role of next-generation sequencing in disease diagnosis and treatment. Front Immunol. 2018;9:2868. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2018.02868.
Kerry-Barnard S, Zhou L, Phillips L, Furegato M, Witney AA, Sadiq ST, et al. Vaginal microbiota in ethnically diverse young women who did or did not develop pelvic inflammatory disease: community-based prospective study. Sex Transm Infect. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2021-055260.
Komiya S, Matsuo Y, Nakagawa S, Morimoto Y, Kryukov K, Okada H, et al. MinION, a portable long-read sequencer, enables rapid vaginal microbiota analysis in a clinical setting. BMC Med Genomics. 2022;15(1):68. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12920-022-01218-8.
Quan L, Dong R, Yang W, Chen L, Lang J, Liu J, et al. Simultaneous detection and comprehensive analysis of HPV and microbiome status of a cervical liquid-based cytology sample using Nanopore MinION sequencing. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):19337. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-55843-y.
Oberle A, Urban L, Falch-Leis S, Ennemoser C, Nagai Y, Ashikawa K, et al. 16S rRNA long-read nanopore sequencing is feasible and reliable for endometrial microbiome analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2021;42(6):1097–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.03.016.
Tuddenham S, Stennett CA, Cone RA, Ravel J, Macintyre AN, Ghanem KG, et al. Vaginal cytokine profile and microbiota before and after lubricant use compared with condomless vaginal sex: a preliminary observational study. BMC Infect Dis. 2021;21(1):973. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-021-06512-x.
Ruan XF, Zhang YX, Chen S, Liu XR, Zhu FF, Huang YX, et al. Non-lactobacillus-dominated vaginal microbiota is associated with a tubal pregnancy in symptomatic Chinese women in the early stage of pregnancy: a nested case-control study. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2021;11:659505. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2021.659505.
Zhang Z, Li T, Zhang D, Zong X, Bai H, Bi H, et al. Distinction between vaginal and cervical microbiota in high-risk human papilloma virus-infected women in China. BMC Microbiol. 2021;21(1):90. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-021-02152-y.
Dunlop AL, Satten GA, Hu YJ, Knight AK, Hill CC, Wright ML, et al. Vaginal microbiome composition in early pregnancy and risk of spontaneous preterm and early term birth among African American women. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2021;11:641005. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2021.641005.
Sirichoat A, Sankuntaw N, Engchanil C, Buppasiri P, Faksri K, Namwat W, et al. Comparison of different hypervariable regions of 16S rRNA for taxonomic profiling of vaginal microbiota using next-generation sequencing. Arch Microbiol. 2021;203(3):1159–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00203-020-02114-4.
Kozich JJ, Westcott SL, Baxter NT, Highlander SK, Schloss PD. Development of a dual-index sequencing strategy and curation pipeline for analyzing amplicon sequence data on the MiSeq Illumina sequencing platform. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2013;79(17):5112–20. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01043-13.
Fadrosh DW, Ma B, Gajer P, Sengamalay N, Ott S, Brotman RM, et al. An improved dual-indexing approach for multiplexed 16S rRNA gene sequencing on the Illumina MiSeq platform. Microbiome. 2014;2(1):6. https://doi.org/10.1186/2049-2618-2-6.
Klindworth A, Pruesse E, Schweer T, Peplies J, Quast C, Horn M, et al. Evaluation of general 16S ribosomal RNA gene PCR primers for classical and next-generation sequencing-based diversity studies. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41(1):e1. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks808.
Frank JA, Reich CI, Sharma S, Weisbaum JS, Wilson BA, Olsen GJ. Critical evaluation of two primers commonly used for amplification of bacterial 16S rRNA genes. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008;74(8):2461–70. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02272-07.
Schloss PD, Westcott SL, Ryabin T, Hall JR, Hartmann M, Hollister EB, et al. Introducing mothur: open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009;75(23):7537–41. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.01541-09.
Graspeuntner S, Waschina S, Kunzel S, Twisselmann N, Rausch TK, Cloppenborg-Schmidt K, et al. Gut dysbiosis with bacilli dominance and accumulation of fermentation products precedes late-onset sepsis in preterm infants. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;69(2):268–77. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciy882.
Reinhold L, Mollering A, Wallis S, Palade E, Schafer K, Dromann D, et al. Dissimilarity of airway and lung tissue microbiota in smokers undergoing surgery for lung cancer. Microorganisms. 2020;8(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8060794.
Pruesse E, Quast C, Knittel K, Fuchs BM, Ludwig W, Peplies J, et al. SILVA: a comprehensive online resource for quality checked and aligned ribosomal RNA sequence data compatible with ARB. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35(21):7188–96. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkm864.
Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41(Database issue):D590-6. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks1219.
Rognes T, Flouri T, Nichols B, Quince C, Mahe F. VSEARCH: a versatile open source tool for metagenomics. PeerJ. 2016;4:e2584. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2584.
Fettweis JM, Serrano MG, Sheth NU, Mayer CM, Glascock AL, Brooks JP, et al. Species-level classification of the vaginal microbiome. BMC Genomics. 2012;13(Suppl 8):S17. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-13-S8-S17.
R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2021.
Oksanen J, Kindt R, Legendre P, O’Hara B, Simpson GL, Solymos P, et al. Vegan: Community Ecology Package. http://www.cranr-projectorg/http://veganr-forger-projectorg/.2008
P’ng C, Green J, Chong LC, Waggott D, Prokopec SD, Shamsi M, et al. BPG: Seamless, automated and interactive visualization of scientific data. BMC Bioinformatics. 2019;20(1):42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-019-2610-2.
France MT, Ma B, Gajer P, Brown S, Humphrys MS, Holm JB, et al. VALENCIA: a nearest centroid classification method for vaginal microbial communities based on composition. Microbiome. 2020;8(1):166. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-020-00934-6.
Schlaberg R. Microbiome diagnostics. Clin Chem. 2020;66(1):68–76. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2019.303248.
Chiu CY, Miller SA. Clinical metagenomics. Nat Rev Genet. 2019;20(6):341–55. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-019-0113-7.
Bharti R, Grimm DG. Current challenges and best-practice protocols for microbiome analysis. Brief Bioinform. 2021;22(1):178–93. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbz155.
Kerkhof LJ. Is Oxford Nanopore sequencing ready for analyzing complex microbiomes? FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2021;97(3). https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiab001.
Haahr T, Jensen JS, Thomsen L, Duus L, Rygaard K, Humaidan P. Abnormal vaginal microbiota may be associated with poor reproductive outcomes: a prospective study in IVF patients. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(4):795–803. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew026.
Kroon SJ, Ravel J, Huston WM. Cervicovaginal microbiota, women’s health, and reproductive outcomes. Fertil Steril. 2018;110(3):327–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.06.036.
Zeng H, He D, Hu L, Abdullah RK, Zhang L, Jiang B, et al. Non-Lactobacillus dominance of the vagina is associated with reduced live birth rate following IVF/ICSI: a propensity score-matched cohort study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-021-06171-y.
Curry KD, Wang Q, Nute MG, Tyshaieva A, Reeves E, Soriano S, et al. Emu: species-level microbial community profiling of full-length 16S rRNA Oxford Nanopore sequencing data. Nat Methods. 2022;19(7):845–53. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-022-01520-4.
Ravel J, Brotman RM. Translating the vaginal microbiome: gaps and challenges. Genome Med. 2016;8(1):35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13073-016-0291-2.
Acknowledgements
We thank Anya Schulz, Siegrid Pätzmann, and Anke Hellberg for their constant valuable support.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This work was supported by the Junior Funding of the University of Lübeck (J10_2020) granted to SG.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization, S.G., G.G., and J.T.; methodology, S.G., M.L., and J.T.; formal analysis, T.L., S.G., and L.K.; investigation, T.L., K.N., L.K., A.M., S.S., and R.T; data curation, K.N., A.M., and M.L.; writing—original draft, T.L., M.L., S.G., and J.T.; writing—review and editing, K.N., C.K., J.R., and J.T.; funding acquisition, S.G, K.N., G.G., J.R., and J.T. Resources, C.K., G.G, J.R., and J.T.; supervision, C.K., G.G., J.R., and J.T.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
The study was prospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03507673). Institutional review board approval was granted (Ethical Review Board of the University of Luebeck, reference number 18–005) and all patients provided written informed consent.
Consent to participate
All patients provided written informed consent.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Joanne Trinh and Jan Rupp shared senior authorship
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access 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 licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence 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 licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Lüth, T., Graspeuntner, S., Neumann, K. et al. Improving analysis of the vaginal microbiota of women undergoing assisted reproduction using nanopore sequencing. J Assist Reprod Genet 39, 2659–2667 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02628-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02628-4