Skip to main content
Scientific Reports logoLink to Scientific Reports
. 2020 Oct 27;10:18358. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-74655-z

Vaginal microbiota evaluation and prevalence of key pathogens in ecuadorian women: an epidemiologic analysis

Ana María Salinas 1,#, Verónica Gabriela Osorio 1,#, David Pacha-Herrera 1, Juan S Vivanco 1, Ana Francisca Trueba 2, António Machado 1,
PMCID: PMC7591572  PMID: 33110095

Abstract

Vaginal infection is a gynecological problem in women of reproductive age with multiple health outcomes. The most common forms of infection include bacterial vaginosis (BV), vulvovaginal candidiasis (VC), and aerobic vaginitis (AV). Our main goals were to evaluate different types of vaginal infections in Ecuadorian women in a large urban area (Quito) and to characterize the vaginal microbiota colonization by opportunistic species. We collected vaginal swabs and epidemiological surveys from 414 women from June 2016 to July of 2017. We analyzed vaginal samples for the presence of any vaginal infection. The microbiological examination was done through Gram-stain, wet mount smears, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays using primers for target genes, such as 16S rRNA (Atopobium vaginae, Mobiluncus mulieris, and Gardnerella species), ddl (Enterococcus faecalis), adk (Escherichia coli) and KER1 (Candida albicans) genes. Most women showed a healthy vaginal microbiota (66.7%). Nearly one-tenth (10.4%) of the participants had intermediate microbiota, and the remaining women (22.9%) had a single vaginal infection (BV, AV, or VC) or coinfections. From the 95 participants that had an infection, AV was the main diagnosed vaginal infection (51.6%), followed by BV (24.2%) and finally VC (7.4%). The remaining women (16.8%) showed coinfections, being BV and AV the most common coinfection. Using univariable logistic regression analyses we found an increased odds of healthy microbiota in women with a sexual partner (P = 0.02, OR = 1.64). Also, women in a free union relationship (P = 0.000, OR = 16.65) had an increased odds of having coinfections. On the other hand, the use of birth control (condom OR = 0.388 or other contraceptive method OR = 0.363) was associated with significantly lower odds of intermediate microbiota (P ≤ 0.05). We found no statistically significant differences between women with infection and a particular group age. Using multivariate logistic regression analyses we initially found an increased odds of having BV in women with M. mulieris (P = 0.020, OR = 4.98) and Gardnerella species (P = 0.010, OR = 4.16). Women with E. coli showed an increased odds of having AV (P = 0.009, OR = 2.81). The presence of C. albicans in women showed an increased odds of having VC (P = 0.007, OR = 17.94). Finally, women with M. mulieris showed a reverse odds of having healthy microbiota (P = 0.008, OR = 0.06). We found no statistically significant differences between women with symptomatic and asymptomatic infections or the presence of Enterococcus faecalis. We found using logistic regression analyses that M. mulieris was the most prevalent opportunistic pathogen among women with vaginal infection. Further studies should evaluate the possibility to use M. mulieris as a potential key predictor for vaginal infections.

Subject terms: Clinical microbiology, Microbial communities, Microbiome

Introduction

Pregnancy outcomes and women’s health usually depend on the type of vaginal microbiota1,2. This microbiota consists of a dynamic ecosystem of various microbes in different quantities and ratios, can either protect the vaginal epithelium or cause different vaginal infections3. When there is a Lactobacillus-dominated vaginal microbiota, multiple Lactobacillus species reside in the vaginal epithelium as commensal bacteria and may act as the first defense mechanism against infection4,5. These lactobacilli act as biological surfactants preventing the initial adhesion of potential pathogens6,7. However, little is known about other types of vaginal microbiota in which Lactobacillus species do not dominate.

When this ecosystem gets disrupted, the vaginal epithelium is less protected, and vaginal infection sets in. Typically, vaginal infections are characterized by a shift in microbial communities that include a progressive replacement of certain Lactobacillus species by pathogenic or opportunistic microorganisms3,4. This microbial shift can lead to different vaginal infections such as bacterial vaginosis (BV) usually associated with several anaerobic or facultative bacteria, the most prevalent being: G. vaginalis; Atopobium sp.; Prevotella sp.; Bacteroides sp.; Peptostreptococcus sp.; Mobiluncus sp.; Sneathia sp.; Leptotrichia sp.; and genital Mycoplasma, such as Mycoplasma hominis and Ureaplasma urealyticum4,8. Another vaginal infection is vulvovaginal candidiasis (VC) due to Candida albicans, Candida glabrata, and Candida tropicalis9. Finally, aerobic vaginitis (AV) can be frequently caused by E. coli, E. faecalis, among other aerobic bacteria3.

Vaginal infection is considered the most prevalent gynecological problem of women of reproductive age, affecting millions every year, and the most common cause of gynecological medical care10. BV is associated with numerous health problems such as pelvic inflammatory disease, cervicitis, preterm labor, low birth weight, miscarriages, and chorioamnionitis8,1114. Also, AV and BV are often associated with an increased risk of acquiring human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), Herpes simplex type 2, and other sexually transmitted infections with Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Trichomonas vaginalis, among others12,15.

Previous studies reported BV as the leading cause of vaginal infection in symptomatic women (22–50%), followed by VC (17–19%) and finally AV (approximately 11%)4,9,16,17. A variety of different risk factors, such as ethnicity and geographic location, have been found to influence the prevalence of BV. Several authors reported different BV prevalence in Asia, Europe, Africa, and Latin America4,1820. However, in Ecuador, little is known about the prevalence of BV and other vaginal infections among women2022.

The classical and clinical gold standard methods for vaginal infection diagnosis are physical examination, self-reported symptoms, pH of vaginal fluid, microscopy, and the whiff test2325, which are usually applied in hospitals and clinical facilities worldwide9. Meanwhile, the gold standard in the (research) laboratory for the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis is the Nugent score20,26,27. Although these techniques are highly sensitive and specific for evaluating BV in women16, they are not sensitive to characterize the composition of the vaginal microbiota. To avoid these drawbacks of the classical techniques, molecular analyses have been applied in multiple studies to better understand and characterize the microbiota present in healthy vaginal epithelium and vaginal infection6,11,2830.

In this study, we applied classical and molecular microbiological techniques for the diagnosis of different types of vaginal infection, including microscopy and PCR assays11,16,31. We analyzed the prevalence of BV, VC, and AV in Ecuadorian women of reproductive age around the Quito area. Also, the present study aimed to elucidate the prevalence of symptomatic and asymptomatic vaginal infections in the study population and finally to characterize the vaginal microbiota colonization by several opportunistic species (Atopobium vaginae, Mobiluncus mulieris, Gardnerella species, Enterococcus faecalis, Escherichia coli, and Candida albicans).

Results

Epidemiological characteristics

A total of 414 women participated in this study. The exclusion criteria for the study included the absence of a legible and full disclosure survey or an inadequate result in DNA quantification [DNA concentration lower than 20 ng/µl; ratios of absorbance lower than 1.8 of phenolic compounds or the presence of salts (260/230 nm) and protein contaminants (260/280 nm)] for PCR assays (see Supplementary Table 1), and Gram staining procedures. Four hundred and fourteen women delivered the medical survey and a vulvovaginal swab sample for the diagnosis of vaginal infections (see Supplementary Table 2). The women were between 18 and 56 years old, and most of them were 21–30 years old (61.8%) (see Table 1). The majority were women of mestizo ethnicity (96.9%). Approximately 79.7% of study participants had a secondary (high school) level of education, being most of them undergraduate students (74.2%) or professionals (17.9%). The categories of professionals included: health professionals, administrative clerks, education, and general employees with college degrees. The majority of volunteers were single women (82.9%) and followed by married women (12.8%). Among the participants of our study set, 59.4% of the women reported having a sexual partner.

Table 1.

Sociodemographic, behavioral variables among women in this study with healthy microbiota, intermediate microbiota, bacterial vaginosis, aerobic vaginitis, candidiasis, and coinfections.

Healthy microbiota
N (%)
Intermediate microbiota
N (%)
Bacterial vaginosis
N (%)
Aerobic vaginitis
N (%)
Candidiasis
N (%)
Coinfections
N (%)
Total
N (%)
Total incidence 276 (66.7) 43 (10.4) 23 (5.6) 49 (11.8) 7 (1.7) 16 (3.9) 414 (100.0)
Age
Under 20 57 (20.7) 9 (20.9) 5 (21.7) 14 (28.6) 2 (28.6) 2 (12.5) 89 (21.5)
21–30 175 (63.4) 27 (62.8) 14 (60.9) 26 (53.1) 5 (71.4) 9 (56.3) 256 (61.8)
31–40 27 (9.8) 3 (7.0) 3 (13.0) 3 (6.1) 0 (0.0) 4 (25.0) 40 (9.7)
41–50 13 (4.7) 2 (4.7) 1 (4.3) 1 (2.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (6.3) 18 (4.3)
Over 50 4 (1.4) 2 (4.7) 0 (0.0) 5 (10.2) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 11 (2.7)
Ethnicity
Mestizo 269 (97.5) 42 (97.7) 22 (95.7) 48 (98.0) 6 (85.7) 14 (87.5) 401 (96.9)
Caucasian 3 (1.1) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (14.3) 2 (12.5) 6 (1.4)
Indigenous 4 (1.4) 1 (2.3) 0 (0.0) 1 (2.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 6 (1.4)
Afro-Ecuadorian 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (4.3) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.2)
Education level
≤ Basic 4 (1.4) 1 (2.3) 0 (0.0) 1 (2.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 6 (1.4)
Secondary 224 (81.2) 32 (74.4) 19 (82.6) 39 (79.6) 6 (85.7) 10 (62.5) 330 (79.7)
≥ University 48 (17.4) 10 (23.3) 4 (17.4) 9 (18.4) 1 (14.3) 6 (37.5) 78 (18.8)
Occupation
Housewife 4 (1.4) 1 (2.3) 0 (0.0) 2 (4.1) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 7 (1.7)
Student 212 (76.8) 30 (69.8) 19 (82.6) 33 (67.3) 5 (71.4) 8 (50.0) 307 (74.2)
Unprofessional 12 (4.3) 4 (9.3) 1 (4.3) 5 (10.2) 1 (14.3) 3 (18.8) 26 (6.3)
Professional 48 (17.4) 8 (18.6) 3 (13.0) 9 (18.4) 1 (14.3) 5 (31.3) 74 (17.9)
Civil status
Single 229 (83.0) 36 (83.7) 20 (87.0) 41 (83.7) 7 (100.0) 10 (62.5) 343 (82.9)
Free Union (couples living together for at least 3 years without being married) 4 (1.4) 1 (2.3) 0 (0.0) 1 (2.0) 0 (0.0) 3 (18.8) 9 (2.2)
Married 39 (14.1) 5 (11.6) 2 (8.7) 5 (10.2) 0 (0.0) 2 (12.5) 53 (12.8)
Divorced 4 (1.4) 1 (2.3) 1 (4.3) 2 (4.1) 0 (0.0) 1 (6.3) 9 (2.2)
Sexual partner
Not having 101 (36.6) 25 (58.1) 10 (43.5) 20 (40.8) 5 (71.4) 7 (43.8) 168 (40.6)
Having 175 (63.4) 18 (41.9) 13 (58.5) 29 (59.2) 2 (28.6) 9 (56.3) 246 (59.4)
Contraceptive use
No 101 (36.6) 26 (60.5) 7 (30.4) 19 (38.8) 2 (28.6) 7 (43.8) 162 (39.1)
Yes 175 (63.4) 17 (39.5) 16 (69.6) 30 (61.2) 5 (71.4) 9 (56.3) 252 (60.9)
Birth control methods
Condom 82 (29.7) 7 (16.3) 11 (47.8) 17 (34.7) 4 (57.1) 4 (25.0) 125 (30.2)
Hormonal contraception 47 (17.0) 2 (4.7) 2 (8.7) 6 (12.2) 1 (14.3) 3 (18.8) 61 (14.7)
Combined 38 (13.8) 6 (14.0) 2 (8.7) 5 (10.2) 0 (0.0) 2 (12.5) 53 (12.8)
Others 8 (2.9) 2 (4.7) 1 (4.3) 2 (4.1) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 13 (3.1)
None or don’t answer 101 (36.6) 26 (60.5) 7 (30.4) 19 (38.8) 2 (28.6) 7 (43.8) 162 (39.1)

N number of women who responded in the survey within each category; % assigned percentage for each classification within each category.

Finally, concerning birth control methods, 39.1% of the women declared no use of contraceptive method or did not answer this question. While 30.2% and 14.7% of participants reported to strictly use a condom and hormonal contraception, respectively. Only 3.1% of the women used other types of birth control methods, such as spermicides, diaphragm, cervical cap or sterilization, intrauterine device (IUD), and natural (abstinence, fertility awareness method (FAM), and withdrawal).

Diagnosis of vaginal infections in the study population

In the present study, participants were diagnosed with healthy or normal microbiota (66.7%), intermediate microbiota (10.4%), and vaginal infections (22.9%). However, from the women with vaginal infections, most women had aerobic vaginitis (11.8%), followed by women with bacterial vaginosis (5.6%) and candidiasis (1.7%). Only 3.9% of the women showed coinfections (see Table 1).

From the 95 vaginal infections, 16 volunteers showed coinfections, which four women were asymptomatic, and one woman had simultaneously three vaginal infections. The remaining 79 women were diagnosed with only one type of vaginal infection, where 41 study participants (51.9%) reported symptoms. No statistically significant difference was found between asymptomatic and symptomatic women among different types of vaginal microbiota (see Fig. 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Symptomatic and asymptomatic women in this study with healthy or normal microbiota, intermediate microbiota, candidiasis, bacterial vaginosis, aerobic vaginitis, and coinfections. Legend: The Chi-square test was used to evaluate associations between symptomatic and asymptomatic women in each type of vaginal microbiota in this study. A value of P < 0.05 and 95% confidence intervals were considered significant for the test. All types of microbiota showed P ˃ 0.05 values between symptomatic and asymptomatic women; no statistically significant differences with Chi-square tests were found between symptomatic and asymptomatic women of any vaginal microbiota.

Univariable logistic regression analyses were performed in all women of the present study between sociodemographic or behavioral variables and women with each type of vaginal microbiota (see Supplementary Table 3). The main statistically significant values obtained in univariable logistic regression analyses were summarized in Table 2. In our study set, unprofessional women showed a reverse odd of healthy microbiota (P = 0.020, OR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.17–0.86) but women having a sexual partner (P = 0.020, OR = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.08–2.47) and using hormonal contraception (P = 0.040, OR = 2.03, 95% CI = 1.03–3.99) showed an increased odds of having healthy microbiota. However, when we applied Benjamini–Hochberg (BH) adjustment to detect false discovery rate (FDR) in multiple comparisons, only women having sexual partner remained with a statistically significant association with healthy microbiota. In opposition, women having sexual partner (P = 0.015, OR = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.24–0.86) and using contraceptives (P = 0.003, OR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.20–0.72) demonstrated a reverse odd of having intermediate microbiota. In fact, women using condom (P = 0.008, OR = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.13–0.74) and hormonal contraception (P = 0.021, OR = 0.18, 95% CI = 0.04–0.77) showed a greater reverse odds of having intermediate microbiota, as shown in Table 2. All these correlations maintained their statistically significant association with intermediate microbiota after BH adjustment.

Table 2.

Univariable logistic regression analyses of the main statistical values between sociodemographic or behavioral variables among women and each type of vaginal microbiota evaluated in this study.

Type of vaginal microbiota Sociodemographic or behavioral variables P-value OR 95% CI Adjusted P-value
Healthy microbiota Occupation
Unprofessional 0.020* 0.38 0.17–0.86 0.060
Sexual partner
Having 0.020* 1.64 1.08–2.47 0.020*
Birth control methods
Hormonal contraception 0.040* 2.03 1.03–3.99 0.160
Intermediate microbiota Sexual partner
Having 0.015* 0.45 0.24–0.86 0.015*
Contraceptive use
Yes 0.003** 0.38 0.20–0.72 0.003**
Birth control methods
Condom 0.008** 0.31 0.13–0.74 0.032*
Hormonal contraception 0.021* 0.18 0.04–0.77 0.042*
Aerobic vaginitis Age
Over 50 0.026* 4.46 1.20–16.66 0.104
Coinfections Occupation
Unprofessional 0.026* 4.88 1.21–19.63 0.078
Civil status
Free union 0.000*** 16.65 3.63–76.28 0.000***

Univariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine how different subcategories (independent variables) were associated with the presence of each type of vaginal microbiota (dependent variables) in each category. The following subcategories of each category were used as reference for statistical analysis: Under 20 in Age; University in Education Level; Student in Occupation; Single in Civil Status; Not Having in Sexual Partner; No in Contraceptive Use; None or Don’t answer in Birth Control Methods. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) obtained as measurements of relative risks and the assessments of independent risk factors for vaginal infection establishment. A value of P < 0.05 and 95% confidence intervals were considered significant for the test: *P ≤ 0.05; **P ≤ 0.01; ***P ≤ 0.001. N/d non-determined. All initial values of P < 0.05 obtained by univariable logistic regression analyses were then evaluated through Benjamini–Hochberg (BH) adjustment to detect false discovery rate (FDR) for conducting multiple comparisons. These P-values evaluated by BH adjustment were illustrated in the table as adjusted P-values.

Only 14 of 23 women with BV (62.5%) showed symptomatic infection (see Fig. 1) demonstrating physical symptoms, such as irritation, homogeneous, and gray discharge thin with a fishy odor. Most BV women were between 21 and 30 years old (60.9%). The highest percentages of BV were also identified in student women (82.6%) and single (87.0%). However, no statistically significant differences were found among BV women in sociodemographic or behavioral variables (see Table 2). Among AV infection, 25 of 49 women (51.0%) reported symptoms in our study survey, complaining about inflammation and a yellow discharge with foul or rotten odor. Likewise, most AV women were between 21 and 30 years old (53.1%), student (67.3%) and single (83.7%). We initially found statistically significant differences in women over 50 years old (P = 0.026, OR = 4.46, 95% CI = 1.20–16.66), but this correlation lost statistical significance after BH adjustment. Next, VC was diagnosed in seven women where only four women (57.1%) had physical symptoms, such as pruritus and thick discharge with a color of between white to yellow. All VC cases were detected in women under 41 years old, where 5 of the 7 cases (71.4%) were between 21 and 30 years old, students and that did not have a sexual partner (see Table 1). We found no statistically significant differences between sociodemographic or behavioral variables (see Table 2). Finally, 16 cases of coinfections were diagnosed among women, only 5 women showed asymptomatic infections (29.4%; see Fig. 1). Univariable logistic regression analysis initially showed an increased odds of coinfections among unprofessional women (P = 0.026, OR = 4.88, 95% CI = 1.21–19.63) and women in free union (P = 0.000, OR = 16.65, 95% CI = 3.63–76.28). However, only women in free union (defined as couples living together for at least 3 years without being married) maintained their correlation with coinfections after BH adjustment.

When analyzing sociodemographic factors or behavioral variables simultaneously associated with all vaginal infections, we found that only unprofessional women (P = 0.048, OR = 2.33, 95% CI = 1.01–5.37) shared an increased odds of having any vaginal infection but lost its statistical significance after BH adjustment (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Sociodemographic factors or behavioral variables associated with the presence of vaginal infection.

P-value OR 95% CI Adjusted P-value
Age
21–30 0.355 0.77 0.44–1.35 0.549
31–40 0.919 0.96 0.41–2.26 0.919
41–50 0.412 0.57 0.15–2.16 0.549
Over 50 0.181 2.39 0.67–8.59 0.549
Education level
≤ Basic 0.628 0.58 0.06–5.27 0.628
Secondary 0.544 0.84 0.47–1.48 0.628
Occupation
Housewife 0.639 1.49 0.28–7.85 0.639
Unprofessional 0.048* 2.33 1.01–5.37 0.144
Professional 0.556 1.20 0.66–2.18 0.639
Civil status
Free union 0.143 2.72 0.71–10.37 0.215
Married 0.348 0.70 0.33–1.49 0.348
Divorced 0.143 2.72 0.71–10.37 0.215
Sexual partner
Having 0.412 0.82 0.52–1.31 0.412
Contraceptive use
Yes 0.603 1.13 0.71–1.82 0.603
Birth control methods
Condom 0.162 1.47 0.86–2.52 0.648
Hormonal contraception 0.752 0.89 0.43–1.85 0.901
Combined 0.470 0.74 0.33–1.67 0.901
Others 0.901 1.09 0.28–4.17 0.901

Univariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine how different subcategories (independent variables) were associated with the presence of vaginal infection (dependent variable). The following subcategories of each category were used as reference for statistical analysis: Under 20 in Age; University in Education Level; Student in Occupation; Single in Civil Status; Not Having in Sexual Partner; No in Contraceptive Use; None or Don’t answer in Birth Control Methods. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) obtained as measurements of relative risks and the assessments of independent risk factors for vaginal infection establishment. A value of P < 0.05 and 95% confidence intervals were considered significant for the test: *P ≤ 0.05. All initial values of P < 0.05 obtained by univariable logistic regression analyses were then evaluated through Benjamini–Hochberg (BH) adjustment to detect false discovery rate (FDR) for conducting multiple comparisons. These P-values evaluated by BH adjustment were illustrated in the table as adjusted P-values.

Vaginal colonization of pathogenic and opportunistic species

The vaginal colonization of each type of microbiota by pathogenic and opportunistic species was then evaluated through PCR identification of the main key species from each type of vaginal infection, specifically: A. vaginae, Gardnerella species and M. mulieris for BV; E. coli and E. faecalis for AV; and C. albicans for VC. As shown in Table 4, the most prevalent key species in vaginal colonization of the study set were Gardnerella species (41.8%) and A. vaginae (41.3%). The microbial colonization was then followed by E. coli (12.3%), M. mulieris (3.1%), E. faecalis (1.7%), and C. albicans (1.7%).

Table 4.

Molecular detection of the main opportunistic pathogenic species among women in this study.

Healthy microbiota
N (%)
Intermediate microbiota
N (%)
Bacterial vaginosis
N (%)
Aerobic vaginitis
N (%)
Candidiasis
N (%)
Coinfections
N (%)
Total
N (%)
P (X2)
Total incidence 276 (66.7) 43 (10.4) 23 (5.6) 49 (11.8) 7 (1.7) 16 (3.9) 414 (100.0)
Atopobium vaginae
Absence 179 (64.9) 21 (48.8) 9 (39.1) 29 (59.2) 1 (14.3) 4 (25.0) 243 (58.7) 0.001 (22.9)
Presence 97 (35.1) 22 (51.2) 14 (60.9) 20 (40.8) 6 (85.7) 12 (75.0) 171 (41.3)
Adjusted P-value 0.000*** 0.198 0.075 0.941 0.032* 0.015*
Mobiluncus mulieris
Absence 275 (99.6) 42 (97.7) 19 (82.6) 45 (91.8) 7 (100.0) 13 (81.3) 401 (96.9) 0.001 (39.6)
Presence 1 (0.4) 1 (2.3) 4 (17.4) 4 (8.2) 0 (0.0) 3 (18.8) 13 (3.1)
Adjusted P-value 0.000*** 0.746 0.000*** 0.048* 0.746 0.000***
Gardnerella spp.
Absence 181 (65.6) 20 (46.5) 5 (21.7) 28 (57.1) 2 (28.6) 5 (31.3) 241 (58.2) 0.001 (28.5)
Presence 95 (34.4) 23 (53.5) 18 (78.3) 21 (42.9) 5 (71.4) 11 (68.8) 173 (41.8)
Adjusted P-value 0.000*** 0.131 0.000*** 0.872 0.131 0.052
Escherichia coli
Absence 250 (90.6) 36 (83.7) 20 (87.0) 37 (75.5) 5 (71.4) 15 (93.8) 363 (87.7) 0.038 (11.8)
Presence 26 (9.4) 7 (16.3) 3 (13.0) 12 (24.5) 2 (28.6) 1 (6.3) 51 (12.3)
Adjusted P-value 0.033* 0.541 0.913 0.033* 0.374 0.541
Enterococcus faecalis
Absence 273 (98.9) 41 (95.3) 22 (95.7) 48 (98.0) 7 (100.0) 16 (100.0) 407 (98.3) 0.510 (4.3)
Presence 3 (1.1) 2 (4.7) 1 (4.3) 1 (2.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 7 (1.7)
Adjusted P-value 0.534 0.534 0.618 0.840 0.840 0.840
Candida albicans
Absence 275 (99.6) 41 (95.3) 22 (95.7) 49 (100.0) 5 (71.4) 15 (93.8) 407 (98.3) 0.001 (39.5)
Presence 1 (0.4) 2 (4.7) 1 (4.3) 0 (0.0) 2 (28.6) 1 (6.3) 7 (1.7)
Adjusted P-value 0.009** 0.224 0.328 0.328 0.000*** 0.224

N number of women who responded in the survey within each category; % assigned percentage for each classification within each category. The Chi-square test (P (X2) was used to evaluate statistical differences of the presence of each opportunistic pathogen against its absence in each type of vaginal microbiota. A value of P < 0.05 and 95% confidence intervals were considered significant for the test: *P ≤ 0.05; **P ≤ 0.01.; ***P ≤ 0.001. All initial values of P < 0.05 obtained by Chi-square analyses were then evaluated through Benjamini–Hochberg (BH) adjustment to detect false discovery rate (FDR) for conducting multiple comparisons. These P-values evaluated by BH adjustment were illustrated in the table as adjusted P-values.

The distribution of each microbial species was statistically significant different among vaginal microbiota diagnoses by Chi-square test analysis, excepting for E. faecalis. All statistically significant P values were then adjusted using BH adjustment. We obtained several statistically significant values from this initial evaluation (see Table 4). The presence of A. vaginae showed to be statistically different in women with healthy microbiota, VC women and women with coinfections. A. vaginae absence was associated with healthy microbiota and its presence with VC and coinfections. M. mulieris presence was statistically correlated in all vaginal dysbiosis, except for intermediate microbiota and candidiasis. While its absence was associated among women with healthy microbiota. The presence of Gardnerella species was statistically associated among BV women and its absence correlated among women with healthy microbiota. In addition, we found that E. coli and C. albicans were significantly absent among women with healthy microbiota. But the presence of E. coli was also correlated in AV women while the presence of C. albicans was related among VC women. However, further statistical analyses were realized to fully understand these statistically significant differences in vaginal colonization among women. Therefore, multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine how different key pathogens were simultaneously associated with each type of vaginal microbiota (see Table 5). In addition, univariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine how different key pathogens were commonly associated with the presence of vaginal infection (see Table 6).

Table 5.

Multivariable logistic regression analyses of all opportunistic pathogens evaluated in this study on each type of vaginal microbiota.

Type of vaginal microbiota Opportunistic pathogen P-value OR 95% CI Adjusted P-value
Healthy microbiota Atopobium vaginae 0.107 0.69 0.43–1.09) 0.161
Mobiluncus mulieris 0.008** 0.06 0.01–0.49 0.048*
Gardnerella spp. 0.023* 0.59 0.37–0.93 0.069
Escherichia coli 0.185 0.64 0.34–1.23 0.222
Enterococcus faecalis 0.698 0.73 0.14–3.68 0.698
Candida albicans 0.063 0.13 0.02–1.12 0.126
Intermediate microbiota Atopobium vaginae 0.484 1.28 0.64–2.55 0.654
Mobiluncus mulieris 0.545 0.52 0.06–4.30 0.654
Gardnerella spp. 0.245 1.50 0.76–2.99 0.654
Escherichia coli 0.720 1.18 0.48–2.94 0.720
Enterococcus faecalis 0.362 2.28 0.39–13.37 0.654
Candida albicans 0.374 2.20 0.39–12.58 0.654
Bacterial vaginosis Atopobium vaginae 0.657 1.24 0.48–3.25 0.709
Mobiluncus mulieris 0.020* 4.98 1.28–19.39 0.060
Gardnerella spp. 0.010** 4.16 1.40–12.35 0.060
Escherichia coli 0.490 0.63 0.17–2.37 0.709
Enterococcus faecalis 0.481 2.31 0.22–23.85 0.709
Candida albicans 0.709 1.54 0.16–15.03 0.709
Aerobic vaginitis Atopobium vaginae 0.536 0.81 0.41–1.59 0.999
Mobiluncus mulieris 0.080 3.29 0.87–12.50 0.240
Gardnerella spp. 0.800 0.92 0.47–1.80 0.999
Escherichia coli 0.009** 2.81 1.29–6.12 0.054
Enterococcus faecalis 0.990 0.99 0.10–9.59 0.999
Candida albicans 0.999 0.00 0.00–N/d 0.999
Candidiasis Atopobium vaginae 0.095 6.62 0.72–60.79 0.285
Mobiluncus mulieris 0.999 0.00 0.00–Nd 0.999
Gardnerella spp. 0.703 1.44 0.22–9.19 0.999
Escherichia coli 0.405 2.14 0.36–12.89 0.810
Enterococcus faecalis 0.999 0.00 0.00–N/d 0.999
Candida albicans 0.007** 17.94 2.22–145.11 0.042*
Coinfections Atopobium vaginae 0.056 3.34 0.97–11.54 0.168
Mobiluncus mulieris 0.033* 5.48 1.15–26.18 0.168
Gardnerella spp. 0.359 1.76 0.52–5.94 0.431
Escherichia coli 0.229 0.27 0.03–2.26 0.431
Enterococcus faecalis 0.999 0.00 0.00–N/d 0.999
Candida albicans 0.296 3.50 0.33–36.64 0.431

Legend: Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine how different opportunistic pathogens (independent variables) were simultaneously associated with each type of vaginal microbiota diagnosis (dependent variables). Each type of vaginal infection (BV, VC, AV, and co-infection), healthy microbiota, and intermediate microbiota were considered categorical variables (dependent variables) for testing against different opportunistic pathogens (independent variables) detected in each type of vaginal microbiota. A value of P < 0.05 and 95% confidence intervals were considered significant for the test: *P ≤ 0.05; **P ≤ 0.01. N/d non-determined. All initial values of P < 0.05 obtained by multivariable logistic regression analyses were then evaluated through Benjamini–Hochberg (BH) adjustment to detect false discovery rate (FDR) for conducting multiple comparisons. These P-values evaluated by BH adjustment were illustrated in the table as adjusted P-values.

Table 6.

Association between the presence of each opportunistic pathogen evaluated in this study on vaginal infection.

Opportunistic pathogen P-value OR 95% CI Adjusted P-value
Atopobium vaginae 0.003** 2.03 1.28–3.23 0.006**
Mobiluncus mulieris 0.000*** 20.76 4.51–95.45 0.000***
Gardnerella spp. 0.000*** 2.34 1.47–3.73 0.000***
Escherichia coli 0.027* 2.03 1.08–3.79 0.041*
Enterococcus faecalis 0.722 1.35 0.26–7.08 0.722
Candida albicans 0.047* 4.63 1.02–21.06 0.056

Univariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine how different opportunistic pathogens (independent variables) were associated with the presence of vaginal infection (dependent variable). The absence of each pathogen was used as reference for this statistical analysis. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) obtained as measurements of relative risks and the assessments of independent risk factors for vaginal infection establishment. A value of P < 0.05 and 95% confidence intervals were considered significant for the test: *P ≤ 0.05; **P ≤ 0.01; ***P ≤ 0.001. All initial values of P < 0.05 obtained by univariable logistic regression analyses were then evaluated through Benjamini–Hochberg (BH) adjustment to detect false discovery rate (FDR) for conducting multiple comparisons. These P-values evaluated by BH adjustment were illustrated in the table as adjusted P-values.

Factors associated with the presence of vaginal infection

Using multivariable logistic regression analyses, M. mulieris (P = 0.008, OR = 0.06, 95% CI = 0.01–0.49) and Gardnerella species (P = 0.023, OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.37–0.93) showed a reverse odds of healthy microbiota (see Table 5). However, only M. mulieris maintained its statistically significance after BH adjustment. The remaining key pathogens also showed reverse odds of healthy microbiota, but no statistically significant values were achieved. Also, none of the key pathogen showed statistically significant value in women with intermediate microbiota. Although M. mulieris (P = 0.020, OR = 4.98, 95% CI = 1.28–19.39) and Gardnerella species (P = 0.010, OR = 4.16, 95% CI = 1.40–12.35) initially showed an increased odds of BV in women, these statistical significances were lost after BH adjustment. E. coli (P = 0.009, OR = 2.81, 95% CI = 1.29–6.12) was the only key pathogen that was associated with an increased odds of AV in women but also lost its statistical correlation after BH adjustment. While C. albicans (P = 0.007, OR = 17.94, 95% CI = 2.22–145.11) showed an increased odds of VC in women even after BH adjustment. Finally, only M. mulieris (P = 0.033, OR = 5.48, 95% CI = 1.15–26.18) statistically demonstrated an increased odds of coinfections in women but also lost its statistical correlation after BH adjustment. It is important to mention that Enterococcus faecalis was the only opportunistic pathogen without a statistically significant value against any type of vaginal microbiota.

Furthermore, when analyzing the presence of opportunistic pathogens on women with any vaginal infection, all opportunistic pathogens were statistically associated in women with vaginal infection, excepting for E. faecalis (see Table 6). M. mulieris (P = 0.000, OR = 20.76, 95% CI = 4.51–95.45) was the most prominent analyzed key pathogen among women with a vaginal infection, followed by C. albicans (P = 0.047, OR = 4.63, 95% CI = 1.02–21.06) and Gardnerella species (P = 0.000, OR = 2.34, 95% CI = 1.47–3.73). Finally, both A. vaginae (P = 0.003, OR = 2.03, 95% CI = 1.28–3.23) and E. coli (P = 0.027, OR = 2.03, 95% CI = 1.08–3.79) showed a similar increased odds of having a women with vaginal infection. After BH adjustment, C. albicans was the only pathogen that did not maintain its statistical significance among women with vaginal infection.

Discussion

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first epidemiologic analysis done in Ecuador to evaluate the prevalence of key pathogens involved in the etiology of the different types of vaginal infections described in the literature. Similar to previous studies, healthy vaginal microbiota was identified in two-thirds of the volunteers (66.7%)13,32,33. In 2002, Cauci et al.34 conducted an epidemiological analysis of healthy microbiota, intermediate microbiota and BV infection on Italian women. These authors found 67.8% of healthy microbiota in peri and postmenopausal women with a mean age of 45.3 years old. Other countries have shown different rates of healthy vaginal microbiota, such as the USA (60.6%), Chile (58.3%), and Turkey (47.7%)3537.

Only 10.4% of the participants displayed intermediate microbiota in our study set. Similar results were also obtained in other studies36,38,39. However, several studies have reported higher rates of intermediate microbiota in women4446, showing rates between 36.3 and 69.2%. Nonetheless, in 2002, Cauci et al.34 reported a lower rate of intermediate microbiota (6.1%) when compared to this study. It is important to mention that an intermediate microbiota is different from a normal and healthy microbiota, being characterized by a substantial reduction of lactobacilli40. It is postulated to be an independent pathological condition or a temporary transition to a vaginal infection (such as BV, AV, and VC)4. However, it is still not classified as a full or defined type of infection. It is relevant to mention that this intermediate microbiota may also go back to a normal and healthy microbiota41. As reported by many authors, the composition of the vaginal microbiome can vary throughout a woman’s life in response to endogenous and exogenous factors4143. So, future longitudinal studies should be conducted in order to identify sociodemographic or behavioral factors that could contribute to different outcomes from this type of microbiota.

In our study population, vaginal infection was diagnosed in 95 women (22.9%) at a similar rate to the prevalence reported in the USA (28%)47 but lower than the prevalence detected in Syria (51%)48. One of the highest prevalence of vaginal infection was reported in Bosnia (96%)3. Moreover, most of the participants with one well-established infection in the present study were below the age of 31 years old. Nevertheless, other studies identified a higher risk of vaginal infection in women older than 30 years old49,50. In this study, no particular age group was associated with a greater risk of vaginal infection.

In this study, we found that women in free union had a statistically higher odds of coinfections. Other studies reported no apparent association between marital status or long term relationship and the presence of infection49,51. However, in Hainan (an island province of China), a study done in 2014 by Na and colleagues reported that marriage was significantly associated with a higher risk of VC in their group set (689 cases and 652 controls)50. The present study did not show a clear association of sociodemographic or behavioral variables among BV and VC women. Although previous studies reported a higher prevalence of vaginal infection in women with a lower level of education49,50, this study did not show any statistically significant correlation between education level and women with vaginal infection after adjusting P-values (see Tables 2 and 3). Also, several studies reported a negative association between BV infection and the use of condoms5255. In this study, women having a sexual partner and women using contraceptive (condom and hormonal contraception) showed a reverse association among women with intermediate microbiota (see Table 2). In addition, women having a sexual partner showed an increased odds of having healthy microbiota. These behavioral variables could also prevent lactobacilli reduction usually associated with intermediate microbiota and consequently avoid future vaginal infection. However, no straightforward association was observed between these behavioral variables and any type of vaginal infection in women. In agreement, other studies also revealed that the use of oral contraceptives, intrauterine device, and barrier methods were not related to the risk of vaginal infection53,55,56. It is important to remember that intrinsic and extrinsic factors, such as age, ethnicity, menstruation cycle, lifestyle habits, use of contraceptives and antibiotics may have an impact on the vaginal microbiota5761. Associations between the microbiota plus background variables and clinical outcomes in different stages of a woman’s life are complex, and which intrinsic or external factors drive the community composition it is not fully understood61,62. Behavioral factors, such as sexual behavior and methods of birth control, may contribute to lactobacilli reduction and leading to an intermediate microbiota or even a vaginal infection54,6365. The present study showed the results of the vaginal microbiota colonization in Ecuadorian women from Pichincha province (considered as another ethnicity factor), after controlling the confounding factors, such as sociodemographic, behavioral or environmental variables. Most of the population set was characterized as mestizo ethnicity. Further studies should evaluate a more profound impact of host socioeconomic or educational factors on vaginal microbiota, as previous epidemiological studies in other countries61,66,67.

The most prevalent form of vaginal infection in our study was AV (51.6%; 49 of 95 infection cases), followed by BV (24.2%; 23 of 95 infection cases) and then VC (7.4%; 7 of 95 infection cases). Although few studies analyzed the presence of different types of vaginal infection in women, Jahic and colleagues3 reported in 2013 a similar prevalence of AV (51%) in their population set, a lower rate of BV (15.0%) and a higher rate of VC (17.0%). Another study realized by Mulu et al.68 showed a more similar candidiasis rate (9.2%) as the present study.

Aerobic vaginitis was first characterized in 1999 and then in 2002 by Donders and colleagues in Belgium42,6971. Little is still known about its global epidemiology and implications, when comparing BV and VC. Although our AV prevalence was similar to a study reported in Bosnia (51%)3, other countries showed lower AV prevalence in their studies, such as Belgium (7.9% and 10.0%)71,72, Brazil (4.9%)73, and USA (8–11.0%)42. This low prevalence of AV had been reported in several review studies42,71,74. Besides, Tansarli and colleagues74 reported a prevalence of 5–10.5% of symptomatic AV women, while Kaambo and colleagues42 showed a rate of AV between 8.0 and 11.0% in pregnant women and also 5–24.0% of AV in women with symptomatic infection. In our population set, 49% of AV infection was diagnosed in asymptomatic women showing a smaller prevalence when compared to another study realized by Gondo et al.45 in Brazil, where 57.1% of AV was detected in asymptomatic women.

BV prevalence was 24.2% in the present study, and similar to other studies in Ecuador75 (31.5%), Perú76 (27.0%), and the USA77 (29.2%). Some countries of Europe demonstrated a lower prevalence of BV in their study sets of pregnant women10,78, such as France (7.1%) and Portugal (3.88%). While other studies described a higher BV prevalence of 48.6% in Ethiopia79 and 44.8% in India80. Most epidemiological studies have demonstrated a variety of BV prevalence accordingly to their geographical locations49. This variety of BV prevalence has also been reported in several review studies18,54,81, where it had been normally reported a BV prevalence between 6.1% and 51.6%. Finally, in the present study, 62.5% of women with BV were classified as symptomatic infection, showing a similar prevalence as previously reported by Gondo and colleagues45 in Brazil (66%). However, in the USA, Koumans and colleagues77 stated only 15.7% of women symptomatic with BV.

VC was identified only in 7.4% of women with vaginal infection in the present study, showing a similar prevalence to a study realized in Ethiopia (8.3%)68. However, several countries reported a higher rate of candidiasis, more precisely, Brazil (52.4%), Italy (43.5%), India (35.0%), Nigeria (36.0%), Chile (43.9%) and USA (20–30.0%)35,8287. In our group set, 57.1% of VC were diagnosed in symptomatic women, demonstrating a higher prevalence when compared to Mulu et al.68 (6.8%) and lower prevalence when compared to Gondo et al.45 (92.0%). Most studies reported the presence or absence of infection, as well as their pathogen colonization; however, little is known about the epidemiological prevalence of symptomatic and asymptomatic women until now.

Concerning coinfections, we detected 16 cases from a total of 95 vaginal infections, where 70.6% of women had symptomatic infection. Despite this high percentage of symptomatic coinfections, another study revealed a higher prevalence of symptomatic infection in the presence of coinfections45, more precisely 85.7%. Also, Rivers and colleagues88 showed a high prevalence of symptoms (80% of abnormal vaginal discharge) in women with a coinfection for BV and candidiasis. This work supported the findings of previous studies by reporting a more significant number of symptomatic women with multiple vaginal infections. However, further studies are necessary to analyze asymptomatic women in each type of vaginal infection. Finally, it is important to mention that the only coinfection simultaneously diagnosed with BV, AV, and candidiasis was reported in a woman with several sexual partners. Although it was not possible to establish any statistical significance, this coinfection seems to indicate that several sexual partners could be a risk factor, as already reported in several previous studies54,89.

Further analysis was done in this study to identify the main key species commonly associated with each vaginal infection. This analysis was then compared with previous studies of other countries, as shown in Table 7. Although AV was the main diagnosed infection in our study, only 24.5 and 2.0% of these infections were colonized by E. coli and E. faecalis, respectively, demonstrating an AV dysbiosis induced by other pathogenic and/or opportunistic species in these Ecuadorian women. These results differ from previous reports that showed a higher prevalence of E. coli and E. faecalis90,91. Studies from Bosnia and Italy showed a prevalence of E. coli between 55.0 and 86.7% and E. faecalis between 40.0 and 52.0%. Moreover, Von Gruenigen and colleagues92 identified rates of 28.0 and 44.0% of E. coli and E. faecalis, respectively, in their small population set in the USA. In Japan, Puapermpoonsiri and colleagues33 reported a prevalence of 38.0% of E. faecalis in their study set. However, other studies done in developing countries, such as Nigeria, Mexico, and Iraq, detected a similar or less prevalence of E. coli in AV women9395, more precisely, 16.2, 13.5 and 6.0%, respectively. In Greece, Iavazzo and colleagues96 reported a lower prevalence of E. coli and E. faecalis in a large population set (1.632 women), more precisely, 4.0 and 0.3%, respectively. It is important to mention that several studies have described other AV-associated aerobes than E. coli and E. faecalis74,93,96, such as Streptococcus and Staphylococcus species. This data could explain the low values of E. coli and E. faecalis prevalence found in our study. More research is needed to ascertain other species related to vaginal infections9395.

Table 7.

Summary of vaginal infection studies in women (including this study).

Population description Study group (n) Country Methodology Microorganism species detected (%) References
A. vaginae Gardnerella spp. M. mulieris E. coli E. faecalis C. albicans
Bacterial vaginosis
1 Women in reproductive age (age range 18–56) 414 Ecuador Microscopic examination, Nugent criteria, PCR 60.9 78.3 17.4 13.0 4.3 4.3 This study
2 Pregnant teenage (age range 10–19) 95 Ecuador PCR 100.0 93.7 35.7 Na Na Na 20
3 Women (age 15–54) 223 Brazil Multiplex PCR 9.3 45.7 3.7 Na Na Na 97
4 Premenopausal women (age 18–48) 196 USA Microscopic examination and PCR Na 53.0 Na Na Na Na 127
5 Women (age range 14–37) 50 USA Clinical examination and PCR 54.0 Na Na Na Na Na 98
6 Pregnant women (age 19–41) 206 Portugal PCR Na 67.4 Na Na Na Na 10
7 Women (age 22–53) 116 Lithuania Clinical and microscopic examination, PCR 89.7 100.0 Na Na Na Na 99
8 Women (age 16–45) 538 Bulgaria Multiplex PCR 68.1 98.4 17.0 Na Na Na 100
9 Postmenopausal women (mean 55.6 ± 2.6 years) 52 China 16S rRNA PCR 65.5 82.8 Na Na Na Na 102
10 Premenopausal women (age 18–48) 196 China Microscopic examination and PCR-DGGE 17.1 63.2 Na Na Na Na 101
Aerobic vaginitis
1 Women in reproductive age (age range 18–56) 414 Ecuador Microscopic examination, Nugent criteria, PCR 40.8 42.9 8.2 24.5 2.0 0.0 This study
11 Women with gynecologic cancer (age Na) 26 USA Microscopic examination and culture Na Na Na 28.0 44.0 Na 92
12 Pregnant women (age 15–40) 326 Japan Microscopic examination and culture Na 100.0 13.0 Na 38.0 25.0 33
13 Women (age 18–45) 100 Bosnia Clinical examination and culture Na Na Na 55.0 52.0 17.0 3
14 Women with a diagnosis of AV (mean age 33.5 ± 8.68 years) 81 Italy Clinical examination and culture Na Na Na 86.7 40.0 Na 91
15 Cervical discharge specimens (age Na) 6811 México Microscopic examination and culture Na Na Na 13.46 Na Na 94
16 Symptomatic women (age range 18–57) 1632 Greece Microscopic examination, culture and API 20 methods Na 40.4 Na 4.0 0.3 42.5 96
17 Women (age range 15–50) 250 Nigeria Microscopic examination and culture Na Na Na 6.0 Na Na 93
18 Non-pregnant women (age Na) 80 Iraq Microscopic examination an biochemical test Na Na Na 16.2 Na Na 95
Candidiasis
1 Women in reproductive age (age range 18–56) 414 Ecuador Microscopic examination, Nugent criteria, PCR 85.7 71.4 0.0 28.6 0.0 28.6 This study
19 Adolescents (age 13–17) 213 Ecuador Microscopic examination Na Na Na Na Na 23.7 75
20 Adolescents (age 10–19) 100 Brazil Microscopic examination and culture Na Na Na Na Na 22.0 103
21 Women with candidiasis (age 14–51) 150 Colombia Microscopic examination and culture Na Na Na Na Na 80.0 104
22 Women with candidiasis (age range 15–94) 951 Italy Culture Na Na Na Na Na 77.1 85
23 Women with diagnosis of candidiasis vulvovaginal (age Na) 77 Belgium PCR Na Na Na Na Na 78.6 105
24 Pregnant women (age 18–30) 1163 Malaysia Microscopic examination and culture Na Na Na Na Na 17.2 106
25 Women (age 21–29) 100 Nigeria Culture Na Na Na Na Na 36.0 86
26 University students (age range 18–41) 50 Ghana Culture 28.0 Na Na Na Na 22.0 107

Na not analyzed.

Gardnerella spp. was the most frequent pathogenic species in BV infection (78.3%), followed by A. vaginae (60.9%) and finally by M. mulieris (17.4%). M. mulieris and Gardnerella species significantly increased the odds for BV infection. However, no statistically significant association was found between A. vaginae and BV, and after BH adjustment neither Gardnerella spp. nor M. mulieris. These results were below the prevalence of G. vaginalis, A. vaginae and M. mulieris identified in our previous study done in pregnant teenagers20. One plausible explanation could be due to the higher number of volunteers and adult women (age range 18–56 years old) in the present study. Nevertheless, when compared to other Latin America countries (such as Brazil), the prevalence of the three BV-associated anaerobes maintained the same vaginal colonization dominance but with higher percentages of detection97, more precisely: Gardnerella species (78.3% versus 45.7%); A. vaginae (60.9% versus 9.3%); and M. mulieris (17.4% versus 3.7%). In the USA, Schwebke and colleagues98 detected A. vaginae in similar prevalence colonization (54.0%) when compared to our study (55.4%). Likewise, several studies conducted in Europe (such as Lithuania99 and Bulgaria100) reported a higher prevalence of the same BV-associated anaerobes, but maintaining the same hierarchy order (see Table 7). Finally, in China, two studies demonstrated a similar prevalence of Gardnerella species and A. vaginae in their group sets101,102, more precisely, 63.2–82.8% and 17.1–65.5%, respectively. These prevalence values and hierarchy order of anaerobes in BV could appoint to a co-dependence of A. vaginae and M. mulieris in the vaginal colonization after an initial growth or biofilm establishment by Gardnerella species, as postulated by several authors.

VC was the least vaginal infection diagnosed in this study, and only 28.6% of these cases had C. albicans as part of the vaginal microbiota dysbiosis. Our results differ from some studies worldwide (Colombia, Italy and Belgium) but in agreement with most studies, as shown in Table 7. In 2010, Vaca and colleagues75 reported a prevalence of 23.7% of C. albicans in their study set of adolescents between 13 and 17 years old in Ecuador. In other Latin-American countries, such as Brazil and Colombia, C. albicans prevalence in VC also fluctuated between 22.0 and 80.0%103,104, respectively. In Europe countries (Italy and Belgium), studies reported a more constant and prevalent existence of C. albicans in VC85,105, more precisely, around 77.1 and 78.6%. In opposite, Masri and colleagues106 reported a prevalence of 17.2% of C. albicans in pregnant women from Malaysia. Olowe and colleagues86 showed a prevalence of 36% of C. albicans (36%) in pregnant women while Aubyn and Tagoe107 reported only 22.0% of C. albicans in Ghana. These findings suggest the possibility of other Candida species being responsible for VC, as proposed by several previous studies35,83,85,105, such as C. parapsilosis, C. tropicalis, C. krusei and C. glabrata108110.

In summary, previous studies support the results obtained in our study among Ecuadorian women. The present study identified AV as the leading cause of vaginal infections in our population set. The major findings were the associations obtained between several key pathogens and the different types of vaginal microbiota through univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses. Univariable logistic regression analysis showed a positive correlation between the presence of vaginal infection and all key pathogens, except for E. faecalis and C. albicans. Furthermore, multivariable logistic regression analysis showed the possibility to use certain key pathogens as microbial predictors for different types of vaginal infections. More exactly, Gardnerella species and M. mulieris were negative correlated with healthy microbiota but positively associated with BV women. Only M. mulieris was correlated with coinfections. Only E. coli was statistically associated with AV women, but it was identified in a low percentage of AV women, indicating a plausible association of AV with other species, such as Staphylococcus or Streptococcus species. Also, C. albicans was correlated with VC women but it was only detected in 28.6% of the cases, suggesting the eventual involvement of other Candida species in the establishment of this infection. It is important to note that several significant P-values were reduced in data analysis after Benjamini–Hochberg (BH) adjustment, which we used to detect false discovery rates in multiple comparisons. However, even with BH adjustment, both logistic regression analyses appointed M. mulieris as the strongest microbial key pathogen among women with vaginal infection. These results suggest the possibility to use M. mulieris as a potential key predictor for vaginal infections. Several studies have already postulated the utility of the microbial composition and the presence of certain microorganisms as key predictors of increased risk to develop vaginal infections111113. Further studies should be conducted to evaluate the longitudinal association of vaginal microbiota and quantification of certain key pathogens. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study on Ecuadorian women to simultaneously assess the prevalence of several types of vaginal infection and opportunistic key pathogens.

However, there are some major limitations of the present study: (1) it is a cross-sectional study and therefore unable to establish temporal relationship between vaginal infections and sociodemographic or behavioral variables, and vaginal pathogens, (2) the study did not evaluate the prevalence of lactobacilli in vaginal microbiota, and (3) this study only evaluated the prevalence of a single Candida species. It is also important to mention that classical and molecular methods were applied with only one vaginal swab of each volunteer and no commercial kit was used for DNA extraction. Therefore, the results of the present study could lead to an underestimation of the prevalence of opportunistic pathogens or even infections in vaginal samples. Another drawback was the lack of quantitative data, which may allow us to assess the status of colonization of the distinct microbial taxa. Also, DNA sequencing of the samples could allow us to identify the species present in vaginal microbiota with better reliability and possibly analyze the clades to which each of the species belong. Further studies should be conducted in Ecuador to confirm the prevalence of several types of vaginal infections among women.

Methods

Study area, design, and subject selection

This study was conducted in the Microbiology Institute at the Universidad San Francisco de Quito (USFQ) from June 2016 to November 2017 according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria were defined as following: (1) being 18 years old or older; (2) being born and raised in Ecuador; (3) menstruation ending since at least 2 days or antimicrobial treatment in the vagina within 3 months, and no sexual intercourse within 2 days before sample collection. Exclusion criteria were defined as following: (1) women who were under legal age; (2) women who were in the period of pregnancy, menstruation, or lactation; (3) women with any evidence of macroscopic cervical bleeding or known disease (e.g. immune disease, diabetes or other type of disease, and HIV or other severe infection). A total of 414 Ecuadorian women of Hispanic ethnicity and mostly in reproductive age (18 and 56 years old) volunteered to be part of the study set. The enrolled women received a kit containing an informed consent form approved by the Bioethics Committee of the USFQ and the Ministry of Health of Ecuador (Contrato Marco de Acceso a los Recursos Genéticos No. MAE-DNB-CM-2016-0046); a standardized medical survey, which included demographic, sexual and health behavior-related questions, as well as, information about clinical history (previous history of vaginal infections and their antimicrobial treatments) and possible symptoms (such as, change in color, odor or amount of vaginal discharge, vaginal itching or irritation, burning sensation or pain during intercourse and urination and even light vaginal bleeding or spotting); and a vaginal transport swab system (Stuart's transport media swabs; Copan Diagnostics Inc.), which the volunteers used to provide a vulvovaginal swab sample. The study was supervised by a physician, a psychologist, and a full-time researcher from the USFQ. All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations of the Microbiology Institute at the Universidad San Francisco de Quito (USFQ).

Ethics statement

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the USFQ (Protocol code: 2016-023IN by MSP-VGVS-2016-0244-O review board) in Quito. The exclusion criteria included the absence of a legible and full disclosure survey or informed consent, a previous antimicrobial treatment in the last three months, an inadequate result in DNA extraction and/or in microscopic examination.

Samples collection

The participants were informed by the associated physician how to collect their vulvovaginal swab sample. This sterile swab was brushed against the lateral vaginal walls to collect the fluid sample and was immediately placed in the transport media, stored at 4 °C and processed within the first 12 h. The analysis was carried out in the bacteriology laboratory of the Microbiology Institute at Universidad San Francisco de Quito (MI-USFQ), as previously realized in a study by Pacha-Herrera and colleagues114. The swab was used to prepare a vaginal smear for the microscopic examination of the vaginal microbiota, according to the Nugent and colleagues26. Briefly, each vaginal smear was obtained by rolling the swab onto a glass slide, then heat-fixed and Gram-stained by using safranin as the counterstain. Following the Gram smear procedure, the swab was placed in 2 ml of phosphate buffer saline (PBS) and shaken vigorously until the solution turned cloudy through a vortex for approximately 3 min. The remaining vaginal material was collected by centrifugation at 13,000 rpm for 5 min. The obtained pellet was suspended into two aliquots of 1 ml of saline solution (0.9% NaCl) in separated microtubes. Then, one aliquot was used for microbial growth in different medium cultures and wet mount procedure for better AV and VC diagnosis (see section “Diagnosis of vaginal microbiota”), while the other aliquot was used in the DNA extraction process (next section).

One hundred microliters of suspension were plated onto Petri dishes containing nutrient agar for less fastidious microorganisms (Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, Staphylococcus and Streptococcus sp.), 5% human blood agar (HBA) and chocolate agar (heated human blood agar) for fastidious microorganisms (Atopobium vaginae, Mobiluncus mulieris and Gardnerella vaginalis), Sabouraud dextrose agar (SDA) for Candida sp. and de Man, Rogosa and Sharpe agar (MRS agar) for Lactobacillus sp. The plates were incubated at 37 °C for 48 h, under anaerobic conditions, and microbial colonies were analyzed and identified by gram staining, biochemistry properties (catalase, oxidase, and hemolysis), and PCR (data not shown).

DNA extraction

DNA extraction was developed according to previously published protocols10. The swab was placed in 2 ml of phosphate buffer saline (PBS) and shaken vigorously until the solution turned cloudy, through a vortex, for approximately 3 min. The vaginal cells were collected by centrifugation at 13,000 rpm for 5 min. The obtained pellet was suspended in 1 ml of saline solution (0.9% NaCl). The aliquot of 1 ml of saline solution (0.9% NaCl) was incubated at 100 °C in a water bath for 15 min. After that, all samples were immediately frozen at − 20 °C for 15 min. The samples were then centrifuged at 13,000 rpm for 15 min, and the supernatant was then divided into two tubes with 500 μl volumes, one stored at − 20 °C and the other at − 80 °C. Once the extraction procedure was completed, DNA quantification was performed with a Nanovue spectrophotometer (GE Healthcare Life Science). Concentrations of DNA in ng/μl were measured, as well as the phenolic contaminants (260/230) and the protein contaminants (260/280). Finally, two aliquots of DNA, between 10–20 ng/µl, were stored for future Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) analysis.

Polymerase chain reaction

PCR assays were performed with the 414 samples on a T100 Thermal Cycler (Bio-Rad, CA, USA) using primers for target genes previously used in other published studies115119, such as 16S rRNA (Atopobium vaginae, Mobiluncus mulieris, and Gardnerella species), ddl (Enterococcus faecalis), adk (Escherichia coli) and KER1 (Candida albicans) genes (see Supplementary Table 1). The reactions for all bacteria were performed as singleplex PCR in a total volume of 20 µl containing 0.50 units of Go Flexi Taq polymerase, 1 × Green PCR Buffer with 2.5 mM MgCl2 (Promega, WI, USA), 0.2 mM of dNTPs (Promega, WI, USA), 0.5 µM of each primer and 4 μl of DNA template and the remaining volume with molecular grade H2O. For Enterococcus spp., reactions were performed as singleplex PCR in a total volume of 20 µl containing 0.50 units of Go Flexi Taq polymerase, 1 × Green PCR Buffer with 2.5 mM MgCl2 (Promega, WI, USA), 0.6 mM of dNTPs, 1.6 µM of each primer and 4 µl of DNA template and the remaining volume with molecular grade H2O. The respective use of negative (without DNA sample and samples with other related bacteria) and positive (collection of identified strains of each species through DNA sequencing) controls were used in each PCR assay. These positive controls were provided by the Microbiology Institute at USFQ. All samples were randomly performed in duplicate or triplicate with different negative and positive controls.

After PCR amplification, a volume of 4 µl from each PCR product was visualized in 1.5% (w/w) agarose (Promega, WI, USA) gel electrophoresis using 0.1% ethidium bromide staining.

As reported in our previous study20, positive samples of A. vaginae were sequenced to confirm their identity due to the lack of a strong specificity from its primers and E. coli were validated by API 20E strips (Biomerieux API). Meanwhile, Candida albicans, G. vaginalis, and M. mulieris primer sets showed a strong specificity, and their validation confirmed in previous studies (see Supplementary Table 1). The eventual confirmation step for A. vaginae used the following universal primers for 16S rRNA sequencing (27Fw-AGA GTT TGA TCM TGG CTC AG and 805Rw-GAC TAC CAG GGT ATC TAA TC; temperature of annealing: 62 °C) through a PCR assay carried out with a final volume of 50 μl (adapted from Salinas et al.20) and sent to Functional Biosciences, Inc (Madison, WI, USA). The 16S rDNA sequences were compared to known sequences in GenBank with the advanced gapped BLAST (basic local alignment search tool) algorithm.

Diagnosis of vaginal microbiota

The vaginal sample evaluation was made according to the presence of symptoms, clinical findings during the medical survey, and by microbiological criteria result obtained by microscopy examination (Gram-stained and wet mount smears). Briefly, the recognition of vaginal infections was assessed using a set of previously defined variables (see Supplementary Table 2).

The vaginal smear was obtained by rolling a swab onto a glass slide, and then the smear was heat fixed, Gram-stained, and classified according to the Nugent Score26. Each smear was evaluated by 10–15 microscopic fields under oil immersion (1000 × magnification) and evaluated for several morphotypes. The samples were assigned a score of 0–10, in which the criteria for healthy or normal vaginal microbiota were 0–3, while intermediate microbiota were 4 to 6, and bacterial vaginosis were 7–1026. The Nugent score provides a protocol for measuring scores and gives a total summed score depending on the number of large gram-positive rods (Lactobacillus morphotypes), small gram-variable rods (G. vaginalis morphotypes), small gram-negative rods (Bacteroides spp. morphotypes), and curved gram-negative rods (Mobiluncus spp. morphotypes).

After an initial evaluation by Nugent criteria, all samples were then evaluated through their microscopic examination of wet mounts from the previous saline solution aliquot (see “Vaginal colonization of pathogenic and opportunistic species”). These wet mount preps were used for better detection of Trichomonas vaginalis, clue cells, aerobic vaginitis evaluation according to Schröder's classification but refined in 2005 by Donders et al.71 and also vulvovaginal candidiasis evaluation accordingly to Marot-Leblond et al.120 in 2009. Briefly, from each selected sample, a drop of the saline solution aliquot was placed onto a clean glass slide, cover with a coverslip, and firstly examined microscopically using high power (40 ×) objective for the presence of Trichomonas vaginalis, leukocytes and clue cells. Then, the same wet mount prep was evaluated through a phase-contrast microscope (400 × magnification) for AV and VC diagnosis. For AV, the microscopic examination in a total of ten microscopic fields included signs of the absence or low number of Lactobacillus morphotypes (average of < 5 cells per field), positive for cocci or coarse bacilli in high number (average of > 20 cells per field), presence of parabasal epithelial cells representing > 10% of the epithelial cells, and/or positive for leukocytes (aggravated AV diagnosis if they showed granular appearance). Aggravated AV diagnosis was defined as the most extreme form of aerobic vaginitis under Donders evaluation from Schröders classification71, where AV samples showed lactobacilli severely depressed or absent because of overgrowth of other bacteria (Cocci or chains), more than 10 leukocytes per epithelial cell present in the samples and more than 50% of the leukocytes had a toxic appearance on their granular appearance due to abundant lysozyme activity (‘toxic leukocytes’). Finally, VC was assessed accordingly to Marot-Leblond and colleagues through at least two of the three applicable criteria: (1) positive Gram-stain or wet mount smear preparation with yeast cells and/or pseudo hyphae in high number (average of 5 > yeast cells and/or pseudo hyphae per field) in more than two in a total of ten microscopic fields; (2) and positive culture in Chocolate and Blood Agar and/or Sabouraud dextrose agar (SDA); (3) eventual symptoms (thick, white vaginal discharge with no odor, vulvar and vaginal pruritus, burning, or dyspareunia) or clinical history (previous infection) obtained from the medical survey. Absence of yeast cells and/or pseudo hyphae or a low number of Candida spp. (less than 5 yeast cells and/or pseudo hyphae per field) result on Gram-stain and wet mount smears observation together with a negative growth culture was considered as normal Candida colonization rather than VC120.

Statistical analysis

Univariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine how different subcategories (independent variables) were associated with the presence of each type of vaginal microbiota (dependent variables) in each category of sociodemographic or behavioral variables. The same univariable logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the association between sociodemographic or behavioral variables and the prevalence of vaginal infection in women. The following subcategories of each category were used as reference for these statistical analyses: under 20 in Age; university in education level; student in occupation; single in civil status; not having in sexual partner; no in contraceptive use; none or don’t answer in birth control methods. Each type of vaginal infection (BV, VC, AV, and co-infection), healthy microbiota and intermediate microbiota were considered categorical variables for testing differences against demographic variables (age and civil status), socioeconomic variables (level of education and occupation) and personal habits (having sexual partner and method of birth control). The Chi-square test was used to evaluate associations between symptomatic and asymptomatic women in each type of vaginal infection in this study. The Chi-square test was also used to evaluate associations between the prevalence of vaginal infection with the presence of each opportunistic pathogen (A. vaginae, M. mulieris, Gardnerella spp., E. coli, E. faecalis, and C. albicans), when compared to its absence.

Furthermore, a multivariable logistic regression analysis was also performed to correlate the presence of multiple opportunistic pathogens (independent variables) with the outcome of each type of vaginal microbiota (dependent variable). Both logistic regression analyses calculated P-values, Odds Ratios (OR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) for each outcome. P-values and Odds ratios) were applied for an association, as previously used in other studies121123. Therefore, the P-value was used as a test of association, while the OR was then used as a measure of association124. A value of P < 0.05 and 95% confidence intervals were considered significant for the association test. All initial values of P < 0.05 obtained by univariable logistic regression, Chi-square and multivariable logistic regression analyses were then evaluated through Benjamini–Hochberg (BH) adjustment to detect false discovery rate (FDR) for conducting multiple comparisons. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 25.0 (SPSS Statistics for Windows Version 25.0, Armonk, NY, IBM Corp), excepting for Benjamini–Hochberg (BH) adjustment. The BH adjustment was realized using Seed-based d Mapping software (SDM, version 6.21, https://www.sdmproject.com, formerly “Signed Differential Mapping”)125,126.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Tables. (75.2KB, docx)

Acknowledgements

We thank Jay Graham for his valuable contribution to the manuscript review, the volunteers Maria Paula Erazo, Darío F. Cueva, Miguel Orellana, Pamela Borja and Camila Arboleda that made possible this study, and also the people who work in the Institute of Microbiology of USFQ.

Author contributions

Experimental research: V.O., A.M.S. Methodology: A.M. Validation: V.O., A.M.S. Formal analysis: A.F.T., D.P.-H., J.S.V., A.M. Resources: A.M. Data curation: A.F.T., D.P.-H., J.S.V. Writing—original draft preparation: V.O., A.M.S., A.M. Writing—review and editing: A.M.S., A.F.T., D.P.-H., A.M. Supervision: A.M. Project administration and funding: A.M. with USFQ Chancellor Grants.

Funding

This work is supported by Chancellor Grants 2018 and COCIBA research budget from Universidad San Francisco de Quito, under the Project ID: 5456 entitled ''Caracterización de la microbiota vaginal y sus factores de riesgos en mujeres ecuatorianas''. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

These authors contributed equally: Ana María Salinas and Verónica Gabriela Osorio.

Supplementary information

is available for this paper at 10.1038/s41598-020-74655-z.

References

  • 1.Keshavarz H, Duffy SW, Sadeghi-Hassanabadi A, Zolghadr Z, Oboodi B. Risk factors for and relationship between bacterial vaginosis and cervicitis in a high risk population for cervicitis in Southern Iran. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2001;17:89–95. doi: 10.1023/A:1010935723248. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Hellberg D, Zdolsek B, Nilsson S, Mårdh PA. Sexual behavior of women with repeated episodes of vulvovaginal candidiasis. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 1995;11:575–579. doi: 10.1007/BF01719311. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Jahic M, Mulavdic M, Nurkic J, Jahic E, Nurkic M. Clinical characteristics of aerobic vaginitis and its association to vaginal candidiasis, trichomonas vaginitis and bacterial vaginosis. Med. Arch. (Sarajevo, Bosnia Herzegovina) 2013;67:428–430. doi: 10.5455/medarh.2013.67.428-430. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Onderdonk AB, Delaney ML, Fichorova N. The human microbiome during bacterial vaginosis. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2016;29:223–238. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00075-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Petrova MI, Lievens E, Malik S, Imholz N, Lebeer S. Lactobacillus species as biomarkers and agents that can promote various aspects of vaginal health. Front. Physiol. 2015;6:1–18. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2015.00081. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ling XZ, et al. Molecular analysis of the diversity of vaginal microbiota associated with bacterial vaginosis. BMC Genomics. 2010;11:488. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-11-488. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.O’hanlon DE, Moench TR, Cone RA. Vaginal pH and microbicidal lactic acid when lactobacilli dominate the microbiota. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e80074. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0080074. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Krauss-Silva L, et al. Basic vaginal pH, bacterial vaginosis and aerobic vaginitis: prevalence in early pregnancy and risk of spontaneous preterm delivery, a prospective study in a low socioeconomic and multiethnic South American population. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14:1–10. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Owen MK, Clenney TL. Management of vaginitis. Am. Fam. Physician. 2004;70:2125-32–2139-40. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Machado D, Castro J, Martinez-de-Oliveira J, Nogueira-Silva C, Cerca N. Prevalence of bacterial vaginosis in Portuguese pregnant women and vaginal colonization by Gardnerella vaginalis. PeerJ. 2017;5:e3750. doi: 10.7717/peerj.3750. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Fredricks DN, Fiedler TL, Marrazzo JM. Molecular identification of bacteria associated with bacterial vaginosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2005;353:1899–1911. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa043802. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Datcu R. Characterization of the vaginal microflora in health and disease. Dan. Med. J. 2014;61:1–24. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Tamrakar R, et al. Association between Lactobacillus species and bacterial vaginosis-related bacteria, and bacterial vaginosis scores in pregnant Japanese women. BMC Infect. Dis. 2007;7:128. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-7-128. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Nelson DB, et al. Preterm labor and bacterial vaginosis-associated bacteria among urban women. J. Perinat. Med. 2009;37:130–134. doi: 10.1515/JPM.2009.026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wiesenfeld HC, Hillier SL, Krohn MA, Landers DV, Sweet RL. Bacterial vaginosis is a strong predictor of Neisseriagonorrhoeae and Chlamydiatrachomatis infection. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2003;36:663–668. doi: 10.1086/367658. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Hainer BL, Gibson MV. Vaginitis: diagnosis and treatment. Am. Fam. Physician. 2011;83:807–815. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Anderson MR, Klink K, Cohrssen A. Evaluation of vaginal complaints. JAMA. 2004;291:1368. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.11.1368. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kenyon C, Colebunders R, Crucitti T. The global epidemiology of bacterial vaginosis: a systematic review. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2013;209:505–523. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.05.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Jaiberth, R., Arias, A. C., Arredondo, M. V., Henao, J. S. & Herrera Posada, D. Prevalencia de vaginosis bacteriana en usuarios de una institución prestadora de servicios de salud de Medellín Colombia 17–130 (2015).
  • 20.Salinas AM, et al. Bacterial identification of the vaginal microbiota in Ecuadorian pregnant teenagers: an exploratory analysis. PeerJ. 2018;6:e4317. doi: 10.7717/peerj.4317. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Cuevas A, et al. Intimate hygiene and bacterial vaginosis: epidemiological Latinoamerican Survey 2008. Rev. Colomb. Obstet. Ginecol. 2010;61:198–206. doi: 10.18597/rcog.265. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Castillo, A. et al. Guía de atención integral en VIH/Sida. (Ministerio de Salud Pública del Ecuador, 2010).
  • 23.Joesoef MR, Hillier SL, Josodiwondo S, Linnan M. Reproducibility of a scoring system for gram stain diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1991;29:1730–1731. doi: 10.1128/JCM.29.8.1730-1731.1991. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Egan ME, Lipsky MS. Diagnosis of Vaginitis. American Family Physician. Leawood: American Academy of Family Physicians; 1970. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Spiegel CA, Amsel R, Holmes KK. Diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis by direct gram stain of vaginal fluid. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1983;18:170–177. doi: 10.1128/JCM.18.1.170-177.1983. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Nugent RP, Krohn MA, Hillier SL. Reliability of diagnosing bacterial vaginosis is improved by a standardized method of gram stain interpretation. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1991;29:297–301. doi: 10.1128/JCM.29.2.297-301.1991. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Carr PL, Felsenstein D, Friedman RH. Evaluation and management of vaginitis. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 1998;13:335–346. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.1998.00101.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Aagaard K, et al. A metagenomic approach to characterization of the vaginal microbiome signature in pregnancy. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e36466. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036466. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.De Backer E, et al. Quantitative determination by real-time PCR of four vaginal Lactobacillus species, Gardnerellavaginalis and Atopobiumvaginae indicates an inverse relationship between L. gasseri and L. iners. BMC Microbiol. 2007;7:115. doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-7-115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Garg KB, Ganguli I, Das R, Talwar GP. Spectrum of Lactobacillus species present in healthy vagina of Indian women. Indian J. Med. Res. 2009;129:652–657. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Madhivanan P, et al. Characterization of culturable vaginal Lactobacillus species among women with and without bacterial vaginosis from the United States and India: a crosssectional study. J. Med. Microbiol. 2014;63:931–935. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.073080-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Hernández-Rodríguez C, et al. Vaginal microbiota of healthy pregnant mexican women is constituted by four lactobacillus species and several vaginosis-associated bacteria. Infect. Dis. Obstet. Gynecol. 2011;2011:851485. doi: 10.1155/2011/851485. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Puapermpoonsiri S, et al. Vaginal microflora associated with bacterial vaginosis in Japanese and Thai pregnant women. Clin. Infect. Dis. 1996;23:748–752. doi: 10.1093/clinids/23.4.748. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Cauci S, et al. Prevalence of bacterial vaginosis and vaginal flora changes in peri-and postmenopausal women. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2002;40:2147–2152. doi: 10.1128/JCM.40.6.2147-2152.2002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Brandolt TM, et al. Prevalence of Candida spp. in cervical-vaginal samples and the in vitro susceptibility of isolates. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2017;48:145–150. doi: 10.1016/j.bjm.2016.09.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Schwebke JR, Hillier SL, Sobel JD, McGregor JA, Sweet RL. Validity of the vaginal gram stain for the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. Obstet. Gynecol. 1996;88:573–576. doi: 10.1016/0029-7844(96)00233-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Zarakolu P, et al. Reliability of interpretation of gram-stained vaginal smears by Nugent’s scoring system for diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2004;48:77–80. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2003.09.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Chawla R, Bhalla P, Chadha S, Grover S, Garg S. Comparison of Hay’s criteria with Nugent’s scoring system for diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. Biomed Res. Int. 2013;2013:5. doi: 10.1155/2013/365194. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Martinez, M. & Ovalle, A. Comparación de los criterios de Nugent y Spiegel para el diagnóstico de vaginosis bacteriana y análisis de los resultados discordantes por el método de Ison y Hay. 55, 26–35 (2017). [PubMed]
  • 40.Hillier S, Krohn M, Nugent R, Gibbs R. Characteristics of three vaginal flora patterns assessed by gram stain among pregnant women. Vaginal Infections and Prematurity Study Group. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1992;166:938–944. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(92)91368-K. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Ma B, Forney L, Ravel J. The vaginal microbiome: rethinking health and diseases. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 2012;66:371–389. doi: 10.1146/annurev-micro-092611-150157. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Kaambo E, Africa C, Chambuso R, Passmore J-AS. Vaginal microbiomes associated with aerobic vaginitis and bacterial vaginosis. Front. Public Health. 2018;6:1–6. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00078. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Ceccarani C, et al. Diversity of vaginal microbiome and metabolome during genital infections. Sci. Rep. 2019;9:1–12. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-50410-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Larsson PG, Carlsson B, Fåhraeus L, Jakobsson T, Forsum U. Diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis: need for validation of microscopic image area used for scoring bacterial morphotypes. Sex. Transm. Infect. 2004;80:63–67. doi: 10.1136/sti.2003.006106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Gondo F, et al. Vaginal flora alterations and clinical symptoms in low-risk pregnant women. Gynecol. Obstet. Investig. 2011;71:158–162. doi: 10.1159/000316051. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Waqqar S, et al. Redox imbalance correlates with high Nugent score in bacterial vaginosis. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2018;44:509–517. doi: 10.1111/jog.13543. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Kent HL. Epidemiology of vaginitis. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1991;165:1168–1176. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9378(12)90722-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Yentür Doni N, et al. Vajinit Yakınmaları Olan 15–49 Yaş Arasındaki Suriyeli Mülteci Kadınlarda Trichomonas vaginalis Sıklığının Araştırılması. Mikrobiyol. Bul. 2016;50:590–597. doi: 10.5578/mb.28173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Wang H, Huang Z, Wu Z, Qi X, Lin D. An epidemiological study on vaginitis in 6,150 women of reproductive age in Shanghai. New Microbiol. 2017;40:113–118. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Na D, et al. Risk factors for Candida infection of the genital tract in the tropics. Afr. Health Sci. 2014;14:835–839. doi: 10.4314/ahs.v14i4.10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Ocviyanti D, Rosana Y, Olivia S, Darmawan F. Risk factors for bacterial vaginosis among Indonesian women. Med. J. Indones. 2010;19:130–135. doi: 10.13181/mji.v19i2.396. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Hutchinson KB, Kip KE, Ness RB. Condom use and its association with bacterial vaginosis and bacterial vaginosis-associated vaginal microflora. Epidemiology. 2007;18:702–708. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181567eaa. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.McClelland RS, et al. A prospective study of risk factors for bacterial vaginosis in HIV-1-seronegative African women. Sex. Transm. Dis. 2008;35:617–623. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e31816907fa. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Fethers KA, Fairley CK, Hocking JS, Gurrin LC, Bradshaw CS. Sexual risk factors and bacterial vaginosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2008;47:1426–1435. doi: 10.1086/592974. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Shoubnikova M, Hellberg D, Nilsson S, Mårdh PA. Contraceptive use in women with bacterial vaginosis. Contraception. 1997;55:355–358. doi: 10.1016/S0010-7824(97)00044-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Chiaffarino F, Parazzini F, De Besi P, Lavezzari M. Risk factors for bacterial vaginosis. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2004;117:222–226. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2004.05.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Brooks JP, et al. Effects of combined oral contraceptives, depot medroxyprogesterone acetate and the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system on the vaginal microbiome. Contraception. 2017;95:405–413. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.11.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Ferrer M, Méndez-García C, Rojo D, Barbas C, Moya A. Antibiotic use and microbiome function. Biochem. Pharmacol. 2017;134:114–126. doi: 10.1016/j.bcp.2016.09.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Huang B, Fettweis J, Brooks J, Jefferson K, Buck G. The changing landscape of the vaginal microbiome. Clin. Lab. Med. 2014;34:747–761. doi: 10.1016/j.cll.2014.08.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Ravel J, et al. Vaginal microbiome of reproductive-age women. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2011;108:4680–4687. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1002611107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Virtanen S, et al. Vaginal microbiota composition correlates between pap smear microscopy and next generation sequencing and associates to socioeconomic status. Sci. Rep. 2019;9:1–9. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-44157-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Hickey RJ, Zhou X, Pierson JD, Ravel J, Forney LJ. Understanding vaginal microbiome complexity from an ecological perspective. Transl. Res. 2012;160:267–282. doi: 10.1016/j.trsl.2012.02.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Noyes N, Cho KC, Ravel J, Forney LJ, Abdo Z. Associations between sexual habits, menstrual hygiene practices, demographics and the vaginal microbiome as revealed by Bayesian network analysis. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:1–25. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191625. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Schwebke JR, Richey CM, Weiss HL. Correlation of behaviors with microbiological changes in vaginal flora. J. Infect. Dis. 1999;180:1863–1868. doi: 10.1086/315065. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Josey WE, Schwebke JR. The polymicrobial hypothesis of bacterial vaginosis causation: a reassessment. Int. J. STD AIDS. 2008;19:152–154. doi: 10.1258/ijsa.2007.007260. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Borgdorff H, et al. The association between ethnicity and vaginal microbiota composition in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:1–17. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0181135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Van De Wijgert JHHM, et al. The vaginal microbiota: what have we learned after a decade of molecular characterization? PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e105998. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0105998. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Mulu W, Yimer M, Zenebe Y, Abera B. Common causes of vaginal infections and antibiotic susceptibility of aerobic bacterial isolates in women of reproductive age attending at Felegehiwot referral Hospital, Ethiopia: a cross sectional study. BMC Womens Health. 2015;15:1–9. doi: 10.1186/s12905-015-0197-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Donders GGG. Erratum: Microscopy of the bacterial flora on fresh vaginal smears. Infect. Dis. Obstet. Gynecol. 1999;7:177–179. doi: 10.1155/S1064744999000496. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Donders GGG, et al. Definition of a type of abnormal vaginal flora that is distinct from bacterial vaginosis: aerobic vaginitis. Int. Congr. Ser. 2002;1279:118–129. doi: 10.1016/j.ics.2005.02.064. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Donders GGG, et al. Aerobic vaginitis: Abnormal vaginal flora entity that is distinct from bacterial vaginosis. Int. Congr. Ser. 2005;1279:118–129. doi: 10.1016/j.ics.2005.02.064. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Donders GGG, Bellen G, Rezeberga D. Aerobic vaginitis in pregnancy. BJOG Int. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2011;118:1163–1170. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03020.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Marconi C, Cruciani F, Vitali B, Donders GGG. Correlation of Atopobiumvaginae amount with bacterial vaginosis markers. J. Low. Genit. Tract Dis. 2012;16:127–132. doi: 10.1097/LGT.0b013e31823c79c4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Tansarli GS, Kostaras EK, Athanasiou S, Falagas ME. Prevalence and treatment of aerobic vaginitis among non-pregnant women: evaluation of the evidence for an underestimated clinical entity. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2013;32:977–984. doi: 10.1007/s10096-013-1846-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Vaca M, et al. High prevalence of bacterial vaginosis in adolescent girls in a tropical area of Ecuador. BJOG Int. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2010;117:225–228. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02397.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Jones FR, et al. Prevalence of bacterial vaginosis among young women in low-income populations of coastal Peru. Int. J. STD AIDS. 2007;18:188–192. doi: 10.1258/095646207780132505. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Koumans EH, et al. The prevalence of bacterial vaginosis in the United States, 2001–2004; associations with symptoms, sexual behaviors, and reproductive health. Sex. Transm. Dis. 2007;34:864–869. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e318074e565. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Desseauve D, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of bacterial vaginosis during the first trimester of pregnancy in a large French population-based study. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2012;163:30–34. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.04.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Bitew A, Abebaw Y, Bekele D, Mihret A. Prevalence of bacterial vaginosis and associated risk factors among women complaining of genital tract infection. Int. J. Microbiol. 2017;2017:4919404. doi: 10.1155/2017/4919404. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Seth AR, Chaitra S, Vaishnavi S, Sharath Chandra GR. Prevalence of bacterial vaginosis in females in the reproductive age group in Kadur, Karnataka. India. Int. J. Reprod. Contracept. Obstet. Gynecol. 2017;6:4863–4865. doi: 10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20174651. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Oostrum NV, Sutter PD, Meys J, Verstraelen H. Risks associated with bacterial vaginosis in infertility patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum. Reprod. 2018;28:1809–1815. doi: 10.1093/humrep/det096. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Aguin TJ, Sobel JD. Vulvovaginal candidiasis in pregnancy. Curr. Infect. Dis. Rep. 2015;17:15–20. doi: 10.1007/s11908-015-0462-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Amouri I, et al. Epidemiological survey of vulvovaginal candidosis in Sfax, Tunisia. Mycoses. 2011;54:499–505. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0507.2010.01965.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Cannobi G, Bórquez S. Vulvovaginitis e Infecciones de Transmisión Sexual en la Adolescencia. Revista Médica Clínica Las Condes. 2011;22:49–57. doi: 10.1016/S0716-8640(11)70392-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Corsello S, et al. An epidemiological survey of vulvovaginal candidiasis in Italy. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2003;110:66–72. doi: 10.1016/S0301-2115(03)00096-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Olowe O, Makanjuola O, Olowe R, Adekanle D. Prevalence of vulvovaginal candidiasis, trichomoniasis and bacterial vaginosis among pregnant women receiving antenatal care in Southwestern Nigeria. Eur. J. Microbiol. Immunol. 2014;4:193–197. doi: 10.1556/EUJMI-D-14-00027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Rathod SD, Klausner JD, Krupp K, Reingold AL, Madhivanan P. Epidemiologic features of vulvovaginal candidiasis among reproductive-age women in india. Infect. Dis. Obstet. Gynecol. 2012;2012:859071. doi: 10.1155/2012/859071. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Rivers CA, Adaramola OO, Schwebke JR. Prevalence of bacterial vaginosis and vulvovaginal candidiasis mixed infection in a southeastern American STD clinic. Sex. Transm. Dis. 2011;38:672–674. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e31820fc3b8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Smart S, Singal A, Mindel A. Social and sexual risk factors for bacterial vaginosis. Sex. Transm. Infect. 2004;80:58–62. doi: 10.1136/sti.2003.004978. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Fan A, et al. Aerobic vaginitis and mixed infections: comparison of clinical and laboratory findings. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2013;287:329–335. doi: 10.1007/s00404-012-2571-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Tempera G, et al. Topical kanamycin: an effective therapeutic option in aerobic vaginitis. J. Chemother. 2006;18:409–414. doi: 10.1179/joc.2006.18.4.409. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Von Gruenigen VE, et al. Bacteriology and treatment of malodorous lower reproductive tract in gynecologic cancer patients. Obstet. Gynecol. 2000;96:23–27. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(00)00850-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Otuonye NM, et al. Aetiological agents of vaginitis in Nigerian women. Br. J. Biomed. Sci. 2004;61:175–178. doi: 10.1080/09674845.2004.11732666. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Flores-Paz R, Rivera-Sánchez R, García-Jiménez E, Arriaga-Alba M. Etiología de la infección cérvico vaginal en pacientes del Hospital Juárez de México. Salud Publica Mex. 2003;45:694–697. doi: 10.1590/S0036-36342003001100016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Razzak MSA, Al-Charrakh AH, Al-Greitty BH. Relationship between lactobacilli and opportunistic bacterial pathogens associated with vaginitis. N. Am. J. Med. Sci. 2011;3:185–192. doi: 10.4297/najms.2011.3185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Iavazzo C, Vogiatzi C, Falagas ME. A retrospective analysis of isolates from patients with vaginitis in a private Greek obstetric/gynecological hospital (2003–2006) Med. Sci. Monit. 2008;14:CR228–CR231. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Malaguti N, Bahls LD, Uchimura NS, Gimenes F, Consolaro MEL. Sensitive detection of thirteen bacterial vaginosis-associated agents using multiplex polymerase chain reaction. Biomed Res. Int. 2015;2015:1–10. doi: 10.1155/2015/645853. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Schwebke JR, Flynn MS, Rivers CA. Prevalence of Gardnerella vaginalis among women with lactobacillus-predominant vaginal flora. Sex. Transm. Infect. 2014;90:61–63. doi: 10.1136/sextrans-2013-051232. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Janulaitiene M, et al. Prevalence and distribution of Gardnerellavaginalis subgroups in women with and without bacterial vaginosis. BMC Infect. Dis. 2017;17:1–9. doi: 10.1186/s12879-017-2501-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Tosheva-Daskalova K, Strateva TV, Mitov IG, Gergova RT. Multiplex PCR detection of problematic pathogens of clinically heterogeneous bacterial vaginosis in Bulgarian women. Turk. J. Med. Sci. 2017;47:1492–1499. doi: 10.3906/sag-1702-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Xia Q, et al. Identification of vaginal bacteria diversity and it’s association with clinically diagnosed bacterial vaginosis by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis and correspondence analysis. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2016;44:479–486. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2016.08.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Shen J, et al. Effects of low dose estrogen therapy on the vaginal microbiomes of women with atrophic vaginitis. Sci. Rep. 2016;6:1–11. doi: 10.1038/s41598-016-0001-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Moreira Mascarenhas RE, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for bacterial vaginosis and other vulvovaginitis in a population of sexually active adolescents from Salvador, Bahia. Brazil. Infect. Dis. Obstet. Gynecol. 2012;2012:378640. doi: 10.1155/2012/378640. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Duque C, et al. Caracterización de la candidiasis vulvovaginal en mujeres de la ciudad de Medellín, Colombia. Publicación científica en ciencias biomédicas. 2009;7:157–160. [Google Scholar]
  • 105.De Vos MM, et al. Vulvovaginal candidiasis in a Flemish patient population. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2005;11:1005–1011. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2005.01281.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Masri SN, Noor SM, Mat Nor LA, Osman M, Rahman MM. Candida isolates from pregnant women and their antifungal susceptibility in a Malaysian tertiary-care hospital. Pak. J. Med. Sci. 2015;31:658–661. doi: 10.12669/pjms.313.7072. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Aubyn GB, Tagoe DNA. Prevalence of vaginal infections and associated lifestyles of students in the university of Cape Coast, Ghana. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Dis. 2013;3:267–270. doi: 10.1016/S2222-1808(13)60068-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Deorukhkar SC, Saini S, Mathew S. Non-albicans Candida infection: an emerging threat. Interdiscip. Perspect. Infect. Dis. 2014;2014:615958. doi: 10.1155/2014/615958. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Nejat ZA, et al. Molecular identification and antifungal susceptibility pattern of non-albicans Candida species isolated from vulvovaginal candidiasis. Iran. Biomed. J. Iran. Biomed. J. 2018;22:33–41. doi: 10.22034/ibj.22.1.33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Krcmery V, Barnes AJ. Non-albicans Candida spp. causing fungaemia: pathogenicity and antifungal resistance. J. Hosp. Infect. 2002;50:243–260. doi: 10.1053/jhin.2001.1151. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Xiao B, et al. Predictive value of the composition of the vaginal microbiota in bacterial vaginosis, a dynamic study to identify recurrence-related flora. Sci. Rep. 2016;6:26674. doi: 10.1038/srep26674. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Lennard K, et al. Microbial composition predicts genital tract inflammation and persistent bacterial vaginosis in South African adolescent females. Infect. Immun. 2018;86:e00410–e417. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00410-17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Mcclelland RS, et al. Key vaginal bacteria associated with increased risk of HIV acquisition in African women: a nested case-control study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2018;18:554–564. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30058-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Pacha-Herrera D, et al. Vaginal microbiota evaluation and lactobacilli quantification by qPCR in pregnant and non-pregnant women : a pilot study. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2020;10:1–13. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2020.00303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Henriques A, Cereija T, Machado A, Cerca N. In silico vs in vitro analysis of primer specificity for the detection of Gardnerella vaginalis, Atopobium vaginae and Lactobacillus spp. BMC Res. Notes. 2012;5:637. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-5-637. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Fredricks DN, Fiedler TL, Thomas KK, Oakley BB, Marrazzo JM. Targeted PCR for detection of vaginal bacteria associated with bacterial vaginosis. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2007;45:3270–3276. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01272-07. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.DTU-National Food Institute. Protocol for PCR amplification of E. faecium and E. faecalis recommended by the EURL-AR. 5–8 (2014).
  • 118.Sepehri S, Kotlowski R, Bernstein CN, Krause DO. Phylogenetic analysis of inflammatory bowel disease associated Escherichiacoli and the FimH virulence determinant. Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 2009;15:1737–1745. doi: 10.1002/ibd.20966. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Galán A, Veses V, Murgui A, Casanova M, Martínez JP. Rapid PCR-based test for identifying Candidaalbicans by using primers derived from the pH-regulated KER1 gene. FEMS Yeast Res. 2006;6:1094–1100. doi: 10.1111/j.1567-1364.2006.00114.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Marot-Leblond A, et al. Efficient diagnosis of vulvovaginal candidiasis by use of a new rapid immunochromatography test. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2009;47:3821–3825. doi: 10.1128/JCM.01168-09. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Porras C, et al. NIH Public Access. 2014;24:209–215. [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Syam AF, et al. Risk factors and prevalence of Helicobacterpylori in five largest islands of Indonesia: a preliminary study. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0140186. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140186. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123.Ozaydin N, Turkyilmaz SA, Cali S. Prevalence and risk factors of Helicobacterpylori in Turkey: a nationally-representative, cross-sectional, screening with the 13C-Urea breath test. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:1215. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-1215. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 124.Kim H-Y. Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Chi-squared test and Fisher’s exact test. Restor. Dent. Endod. 2017;42:152–155. doi: 10.5395/rde.2017.42.2.152. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 125.Radua J, Mataix-Cols D. Voxel-wise meta-analysis of grey matter changes in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Br. J. Psychiatry. 2009;195:393–402. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.108.055046. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 126.Radua J, et al. A new meta-analytic method for neuroimaging studies that combines reported peak coordinates and statistical parametric maps. Eur. Psychiatry. 2012;27:605–611. doi: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2011.04.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 127.Haggerty CL, et al. Clinical characteristics of bacterial vaginosis among women testing positive for fastidious bacteria. Sex. Transm. Infect. 2009;85:242–248. doi: 10.1136/sti.2008.032821. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Tables. (75.2KB, docx)

Articles from Scientific Reports are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES