Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Nov 5;16(11):e0259188. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259188

Characterization of the endometrial, cervicovaginal and anorectal microbiota in post-menopausal women with endometrioid and serous endometrial cancers

Gregory M Gressel 1,2,*, Mykhaylo Usyk 3, Marina Frimer 4, D Y S Kuo 1,2, Robert D Burk 1,2,3,5,6
Editor: Suzanne L Ishaq7
PMCID: PMC8570463  PMID: 34739493

Abstract

Objective

To characterize the microbiota of postmenopausal women undergoing hysterectomy for endometrioid (EAC) or uterine serous cancers (USC) compared to controls with non-malignant conditions.

Methods

Endometrial, cervicovaginal and anorectal microbial swabs were obtained from 35 postmenopausal women (10 controls, 14 EAC and 11 USC) undergoing hysterectomy. Extracted DNA was PCR amplified using barcoded 16S rRNA gene V4 primers. Sequenced libraries were processed using QIIME2. Phyloseq was used to calculate α- and β- diversity measures. Biomarkers associated with case status were identified using ANCOM after adjustment for patient age, race and BMI. PICRUSt was used to identify microbial pathways associated with case status.

Results

Beta-diversity of microbial communities across each niche was significantly different (R2 = 0.25, p < 0.001). Alpha-diversity of the uterine microbiome was reduced in USC (Chao1, p = 0.004 and Fisher, p = 0.007) compared to EAC. Biomarkers from the three anatomical sites allowed samples to be clustered into two distinct clades that distinguished controls from USC cases (p = 0.042). The USC group was defined by 13 bacterial taxa across the three sites (W-stat>10, FDR<0.05) including depletion of cervicovaginal Lactobacillus and elevation of uterine Pseudomonas. PICRUSTt analysis revealed highly significant differences between the USC-associated clades within the cervicovaginal and uterine microbiota.

Conclusions

The microbial diversity of anatomic niches in postmenopausal women with EAC and USC is different compared to controls. Multiple bacteria are associated with USC case status including elevated levels of cervicovaginal Lactobacillus, depletion of uterine Pseudomonas, and substantially different functional potentials identified within cervicovaginal and uterine niches.

Introduction

Within the human body, there exists multitudes of microorganisms which colonize mucosal surfaces to form distinct microbial communities within body site niches. Together, these microorganisms outnumber human cells by a factor of 10 and are collectively termed the microbiome [1]. Bacterial communities existing in anatomic niches such as the gastrointestinal tract, oral cavity and genitourinary system can be classified as mutualists (symbiotically effective microbes), commensals (microbes that are neither harmful nor helpful to the host) and pathogens (colonizing microbes which may cause potential harm to the host) [2]. Mechanisms by which microbiota exert their influences on human health are not well-defined, but under certain circumstances the relative abundance of certain bacterial communities can become altered, thereby disrupting normal homeostasis and resulting in human disease [3]. Microbial disequilibrium can result in endothelial dysfunction, alteration of host immune systems, bacterial translocation, chronic inflammation, and global genomic instability, all of which are hallmarks of cancer [4]. Indeed multiple studies have linked alteration of the normal micriobiome with development of human cancers [59].

While disruption of the genitourinary microbiome may potentially promote gynecologic carcinogenesis, the exact role of the microbiome in gynecologic cancers remains unclear [10]. The vagina is a complicated microbial niche which allows for survival and proliferation of a number of both beneficial bacteria as well as opportunistic pathogens. The “ascending infection theory” postulates that disruption in the vaginal microbiome can allow pathogenic bacteria to ascend into the upper genital tract and cause polymicrobial infections, resulting in inflammation of the uterus, fallopian tubes and ovaries, a condition known as pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) [11]. As chronic inflammation is an etiologic factor in most cancers, this establishes a plausible hypothesis for how microbial dysregulation may promote tumor formation [12]. Furthermore, endometrial cancer is promoted by obesity, hormonal imbalances, diabetes and metabolic syndrome, all of which may promote changes in the microbiome [1316]. The objective of the present study was to characterize the endometrial, cervicovaginal and anorectal microbiota of postmenopausal women undergoing hysterectomy for endometrioid and serous uterine cancers relative to controls undergoing hysterectomy for benign conditions.

Materials and methods

Subject recruitment

This prospective study was approved by the Albert Einstein College of Medicine Institutional Review Board and the Protocol Review and Monitoring Committee. Eligible subjects scheduled for hysterectomy were recruited from a gynecologic oncology clinic from September 2016 thru April 2019. Patients meeting inclusion criteria were approached initially by a gynecologic oncologist; those expressing interest in participation then met with a clinical study coordinator and were given the option of enrollment in the study and those willing provided informed written consent. Women were considered eligible for inclusion if they were English or Spanish-speaking, post-menopausal (defined as 50 years of age or older who have not had menses for 12 consecutive months or more) with biopsy proven well-differentiated endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma (EAC), uterine serous carcinoma (USC) or with non-cancerous conditions requiring hysterectomy. Exclusion criteria included history of prior cancer, prior chemotherapy or radiation therapy, prior bariatric surgery, history of human immunodeficiency virus or PID, use of douching, hormone therapy, systemic or local antibiotics, pro-biotics or anti-fungal medications within 2 weeks of initial consultation, or confirmed urinary tract or vaginal infection such as bacterial vaginosis, sexually transmitted disease or candidiasis within 1 month of initial consultation.

A total of 55 potentially eligible patients were evaluated during the study period. Of these, 11 women had unexpected final pathology results rendering them ineligible, 8 lacked specimen collection and 1 was determined after enrollment to be pre-menopausal. These women were excluded from the study.

Sampling procedures

After induction of anesthesia and prior to antibiotic administration and vaginal preparation, the patient was placed in dorsal lithotomy position. A sterile bi-valve speculum was inserted inside the vagina to expose the uterine cervix and vaginal canal. A sterile q-tip applicator was used to swab the vaginal fornices and ectocervix and was then placed into a 1 mL tube of Specimen Transport Medium (STM) (Digene Female Swab Specimen Collection Kit, Qiagen, CA). Anorectal swabs were obtained by inserting a nylon q-tip applicator approximately 1 cm beyond the anal verge and then placed in a tube containing STM. The patient was then surgically prepped and the hysterectomy proceeded as planned. After removal of the uterus, the specimen was placed on a sterile field and opened coronally using a sterile scalpel in order to expose the endometrial cavity. Swabs were obtained from the endometrial cavity and placed in STM as described above. The surgical specimen was then handed over to pathology for routine clinical diagnostic testing. All research samples were stored in a -20° freezer within one hour of collection.

Clinicopathologic data

After pathologic confirmation of hysterectomy specimens as containing either non-cancerous tissue, well-differentiated endometrioid carcinoma or uterine serous cancer, clinical and pathologic information was abstracted from the medical record and stored in a secure database. Collected variables included patient age, race, ethnicity, body mass index (BMI in kg/m2), parity, chart-indicated diagnosis of medical comorbidities (diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, smoking status), stage of cancer, tumor size, and presence of lymphovascular space invasion. Continuous variables were reported as means ± standard deviations. Categorical data were presented as number of patients with percentages. Bivariate analysis was performed to assess differences of covariates between groups (benign, endometrioid and serous). Continuous variables were assessed using one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) or Kruskal-Wallis tests as appropriate, whereas categorical and dichotomous variables were examined using x2 or Fisher exact tests as appropriate. Data analysis was performed using Stata 14.2.

DNA extraction and next-generation sequencing

DNA from samples stored in STM was extracted using the QIAamp DNA Kit (Qiagen, CA) following their standard protocol, modified by pre-incubation with Proteinase K and agitation with glass beads. Sterility was maintained by processing these samples in a sterile Biosafety Cabinet in an isolated extraction room. An aliquot of DNA from each STM sample was PCR amplified using barcoded primers annealing to conserved sequences within the V4 region (~250 base pairs) of the 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene. The 16SV4 rRNA region was chosen because of it’s robust ability to effectively distinguish between vaginal bacterial species when compared to alternate 16S regions [17]. Barcoded and purified DNA libraries were sequenced using an Illumina MiSeq (Illumina Inc., San Diego, CA) using paired-end reads.

Bioinformatics analysis

Paired end Illumina reads were left trimmed to remove bases that had a PHREAD quality score of 25 or lower using prinseq-lite [18]. Quality controlled reads were then demultiplexed using dual Golay barcodes [19] using denovobarcode [20]. Reads were then merged using PANDAseq [21] and processed using the QIIME2 platform [22]. Briefly, VSEARCH [23] was used to cluster sequences into operational taxonomic units (OTUs) and to assign taxonomy using the Greengenes [24] database. The phyloseq [25] package was used to import data into R [26] for final processing. Alpha and beta diversity was calculated using phyloseq [25] and ggplot2 [27] was used to make final figures. ANCOM [28] was used to identify bacterial markers for endometrial cancer with adjustment for multiple testing (FDR<0.05) as well as adjustment for age and race. Ward.D2 [29] algorithm was used to perform hierarchical clustering using identified biomarkers. ANCOM was utilized in order to overcome the compositional limitations inherent to the study of the microbiome. For more details on this issue and how ANCOM addresses it see the cited reference [30].

Results

A total of 35 patients had microbiome specimens collected and analyzed (14 with well-differentiated EAC, 11 with USC, and 10 controls) (Table 1). The median age of the final cohort was 63.6 ± 9.2 years with no significant differences between groups (p = 0.47). Most patients were obese with a median BMI of 33.6 (IQR 26.3, 38.8) and there were no significant differences in BMI between groups (p = 0.10). There were no significant differences in race, ethnicity, medical comorbidities (diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia) or smoking status across histologic groups. Of the 25 women with cancer, most (88.0%) had early stage (I or II) cancer with no significant differences between groups in terms of extent of disease (p = 0.57), tumor size (p = 0.68), or presence of lymphovascular space invasion (p = 0.13). Of the control women, 6 (60%) had uterine fibroids, 2 (20%) had ovarian cystadenomata, 1 (10%) had adenomyosis and 1 (10%) had pelvic organ prolapse.

Table 1. Characteristics of subjects (N = 35) included in the study.

Characteristics Total Cohort Benign Endometrioid Serous P Value
(N = 35)* (N = 10) (N = 14) (N = 11)
Age (years) 63.6 ± 9.2 59.0 ± 7.2 61.4 ± 9.4 70.5 ± 6.6 0.47
Body mass index (kg/m2) 33.6 (26.4, 38.8) 29.2 (26.4, 36.3) 38.0 (33.1, 42.5) 32.4 (24.7, 36.1) 0.10
Parity 3 (1, 4) 3 (3, 4) 2 (1, 3) 3 (1, 4) 0.15
Race
 White 20 (57.1) 3 (30.0) 11 (78.6) 6 (54.6) 0.07
 Non-White 15 (42.9) 7 (70.0) 3 (21.4) 5 (45.5)
Ethnicity
 Hispanic 21 (60.0) 8 (80.0) 7 (50.0) 6 (54.6) 0.38
 Non-Hispanic 14 (40.0) 2 (20.0) 7 (50.0) 5 (45.4)
Medical co-morbidities
 Diabetes 10 (28.6) 4 (40.0) 5 (35.7) 1 (9.1) 0.21
 Hypertension 28 (80.0) 8 (80.0) 9 (64.3) 11 (100.0) 0.08
 Hyperlipidemia 18 (51.4) 7 (70.0) 5 (35.7) 6 (54.6) 0.28
Smoking status
 Never or former smoker 32 (91.4) 8 (80.0) 13 (92.8) 11 (100.0) 0.36
 Current everyday smoker 3 (8.6) 2 (20.0) 1 (7.1) 0 (0)
Cancer Stage
 Stage I / II 22 (88.0) - 13 (92.9) 9 (81.8) 0.57
 Stage III / IV 3 (12.0) - 1 (7.1) 2 (18.2)
Tumor size (cm) 3.5 (2.4, 5.0) - 3.3 (1.7, 5.2) 3.9 (2.4, 5.0) 0.68
Lymphovascular space invasion 5 (20.0) - 1 (7.1) 4 (36.4) 0.13

* Data with plus-minus values represent means ± standard deviation, otherwise reported as median (interquartile range). Categorical data are presented as N (%) associated with odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals.

Analysis based only on the 25 study subjects with cancer.

The top 20 bacterial genera within the cervicovaginal, uterine and anorectal microbiota revealed significant community separation based on anatomical site (Fig 1). The cervicovaginal microbiome was found to be dominated by Lactobacillus with additional elevated abundances of Prevotella and Gardnerella relative to other genera. There was a clear separation of the uterine microbiome from the other two niches and this body site was the most even in terms of genus diversity with a dominance of Flavobacterium. The anorectal microbiome was dominated by either Prevotella or Bacteroides (depending on the individual sample). PERMANOVA analysis using weighted unifrac distances revealed significant separation between the three anatomical niches (Fig 2, R2 = 0.25, p < 0.001).

Fig 1. Heatmap of 16S V4 reads from uterine, cervicovaginal and anorectal samples.

Fig 1

The 20 most abundant genera of the uterine, cervicovaginal and anorectal microbiota are shown and abundance is represented by color based on a log scale shown at the top left. The names of the bacterial genera are shown at the right of the heatmap. There is a clear separation of the uterine microbiome from the other two niches. The cervicovaginal and anorectal microbiota separate out with the exception of 6 samples.

Fig 2. PCoA performed across sampled anatomical sites.

Fig 2

The PCoA performed using weighted unifrac distances after subsampling each sample library to 1,000 reads. Ellipses represent 95% confidence intervals for site based sample clustering. PERMANOVA analysis indicates significant community separation at the genus level based on anatomic location (R2 = 0.25, p < 0.001).

Microbial alpha diversity analyses demonstrated that serous cancers were characterized by a significant reduction of diversity within taxa of the control uterine microbiome based on the Chao1 (p = 0.004) and Fisher (p = 0.007) measures with a reduction in Shannon diversity (p = 0.094) (Fig 3). The anorectal and cervicovaginal microbiome alpha diversity was not correlated with case status with the exception of Chao1, which was reduced in endometrioid cancers (p = 0.026).

Fig 3. Microbial alpha diversity analysis of anorectal, cervicovaginal and uterine samples.

Fig 3

The plot indicates that serous cancer is characterized by a significant reduction of the uterine microbiome diversity based on the Chao1 (p = 0.004) and Fisher (p = 0.007) measures with a marginally significant reduction in Shannon Diversity (p = 0.094). The Kruskal-Wallis (KW) statistic is shown at the top of each plot.

ANCOM analysis was performed to identify biomarkers that can distinguish patients across the three groups following adjustment for patient age, race and BMI. Fig 4 shows composite hierarchical clustering performed using all biomarkers identified in the ANCOM analysis where W-stat>10 and FDR<0.05. Two distinct microbiome clusters were observed with cluster indicated as “Biomarker Cluster 1” having a significantly higher prevalence of serous cancer patients (7/10) as compared to “Biomarker Cluster 2” where the majority of the benign cases are found (n = 6/7) (p = 0.042). No significant differences were found when comparing the presence of benign cases vs. endometroid (p = 0.30) or endometroid vs. serous cases (p = 0.68). Biomarker cluster 1 had several bacterial genera elevated including uterine Pseudomonas while Biomarker cluster 2 was distinguished by a dominance of cervicovaginal Lactobacillus and Clostridium genera.

Fig 4. Composite heatmap of ANCOM identified biomarkers.

Fig 4

Heatmap shows all ANCOM biomarkers with a W-stat>10 and FDR<0.05 clustered using the ward.D2 algorithm. Two microbial clades can be observed following k-means clustering based on the resulting dendrogram. Cluster designated as “Biomarker Cluster 1” has a significantly higher proportion of serous cancer cases (7/10) as compared to “Biomarker Cluster 2” where the majority of the benign cases are grouping (6/7) (p = 0.042). No significant separation is occurring with respect to the identified clusters and benign vs. endometroid samples (p = 0.30) or the endometroid vs. serous samples (p = 0.68). “Biomarker Cluster 1” has a significant depletion of cervicovaginal Lactobacillus and Clostridium and a higher overall abundance of uterine Pseudomonas.

In order to identify potentially relevant functional pathways that may be associated with the serous cancer associated microbiome clusters, PICRUSt analysis was performed at KEGG level 3. Fig 5A shows PCA within the cervicovaginal region. A total of 49 pathways were identified to be significant (S1 Fig). In order to present the data in a concise manner, only pathways with a corrected FDR<0.05 and a fold change of 3 or greater are shown in Fig 5B. Similarly Fig 5C shows the PCA performed for the uterine samples with significantly differentially abundant pathways after correction for multiple testing (FDR<0.05) in Fig 5D.

Fig 5. Functional potential of uterine serous cancer associated microbiome clusters.

Fig 5

Panel A shows PCA performed using the KEGG level 3 for bacteria present within the cervicovaginal samples. Full sample separation can be observed across the principle component (PC1, 65.5%) between the two-microbiome clusters. Panel B shows significantly differentially abundant pathways within the cervicovaginal samples that have a minimum fold ratio of 3 or greater between the two clusters. Panel C shows the PCA performed using the uterine samples. Panel D shows significantly differentially abundant pathways within the uterine samples with the “Chaperone and folding catalyst” pathway highlighted in red.

Discussion

Our study demonstrates significant differences in bacterial diversity within the uterine, cervicovaginal and anorectal microbiota of women with EAC, USC, and non-malignant controls suggesting a potential role of disruption of the normal microbiome in these histologic types of uterine cancer. Walther-António and colleagues performed a similar study examining microbial differences in women with benign conditions, endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial cancer and demonstrated that endometrial cancers were enriched for Firmicutes, Spriochaetes, Actinobacteria, and Proteobacteria [31]. They also found an association between Atopobium vaginae and Porphyromonas along with a high vaginal pH and the presence of endometrial cancer. Although their study did contain 3 patients with serous cancer, their analysis did not differentiate between EAC and more aggressive uterine histologies. Our study demonstrates significant reduction in microbial diversity of USC specimens relative to EAC specimens or controls.

Our study is also important in that it provides a characterization of a postmenopausal population. Until the 1980s, it was thought that a healthy uterus was sterile [32]. The endometrial cavity is a body niche with low bacterial abundance with 100–10,000 fold fewer bacteria compared with the vagina [33]. The bacterial paucity of the endometrium compared with difficulty culturing most uterine bacteria has made it difficult to characterize the uterine microbiome until the advent of 16S rRNA next generation sequencing technologies. Nevertheless, the majority of extant literature regarding the endometrial microbiome focuses on pre-menopausal women and the association between microbiome dysregulation and adverse pregnancy outcomes [3437]. Our study shows that the uterine microbiome of postmenopausal women was comparable across histologies in terms of genus diversity with a dominance of Flavobacterium. Franasiak et al. investigated the uterine microbiome at the time of IVF and embryo transfer and also found Flavobacterium to be an abundant taxa of the uterine microbiome [38]. Walsh et al also examined the endometrial microbiome composition in patients with and without endometrial cancer and identified significantly increased alpha diversity amongst post-menopausal patients [39]. In their study, the post-menopausal endometrium demonstrated enrichment of Anaerococcus, Peptoniphilus and Porphyromonas, but only 7 uterine specimens were examined of post-menopausal women. All 35 women in our study were post-menopausal and each of them had sufficient endometrial samples available for analysis.

In addition to a reduction of uterine bacterial diversity, we were also able to demonstrate a significant correlation between lower vaginal Lactobacillus and elevated uterine Pseudomonas associated with USC case status. Vaginal Lactobacillus has been previously associated with several gynecological cancers such as cervical [40], ovarian [41] and endometrial [31] cancers as well as general health of the cervicovaginal tract [42]. Pseudomonas has also been recently implicated in association with endometrial cancer by Winters [43] as well as Walther-António [31] and colleagues using 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing of uterine samples. Lactobacillus may be acting to limit carcinogenesis by reducing local inflammation through cytokine modulation. Other studies have demonstrated a positive association between vaginal Lactobacillus and genitourinary health [44, 45]. Furthermore we have integrated biomarkers from across several sampled regions to show that we can effectively separate Serous cancers from controls using unsupervised clustering. This may suggest that the use of disease related biomarkers from across multiple anatomical regions may provide more clinically relevant groupings than the more broad CST categories. Additionally, we identified several pathways previously associated with several cancer subtypes [46]. Particularly interesting may be our identification of the elevation of the chaperone and folding pathway within the uterine microbiome within the USC associated microbial biomarker clade. Overexpression of the HSF1 protein in particular has been linked with significantly lower survival in endometrial cancer patients [47] and given our finding, this may have a correlation to the composition of the urogenital microbiome.

Strengths of our study include the fact that we have characterized microbial composition of anogenital body sites in a racially and ethnically diverse population of postmenopausal women with uterine cancer and contrasted these findings with a control group of postmenopausal women without cancer. Although our cohort is small, it is among the largest published reports characterizing the uterine microbiome in postmenopausal women. Our histologic groups were well balanced in terms of their clinical and pathologic covariates. We also excluded enrollment of premenopausal women and those with recent infections or use of probiotics and antibiotics in order to reduce confounding of our results. It can therefore be assumed that the differences seen between groups can be attributed to histologic differences rather than lifestyle factors that would be difficult to control for in our analyses. It should also be noted that the functional pathways analysis, although shown to be highly correlated with true functional composition of sampled communities [48], is an estimate based on the 16S rRNA sequencing and should be verified using shotgun metagenomic approaches.

Nevertheless there are limitations of our study. Although we made all attempts to collect specimens in a sterile fashion, sterility can never be completely ensured. It is difficult to obtain samples from the endometrial cavity without passing through the cervical os or bivalving the uterus from the side as we have done in this study. Furthermore, the use of a uterine manipulator during hysterectomy may influence the results. Additional prospective studies are required to longitudinally sample the microbiota of postmenopausal women and determine if progressive disruption of the microbiome contributes to endometrial carcinogenesis. Moreover prospective clinical trials will help determine if interventions such as probiotic administration may mitigate risk of gynecologic malignancy.

Conclusion

The microbial diversity of anatomical ecological niches in postmenopausal women with EAC and USC is different compared to benign controls. This difference is both in terms of community structure as defined by a reduction of microbial alpha diversity within the uterus and by differences of bacterial taxa within the cervicovaginal and uterine regions. Microbial composition and presence of specific functional pathways may be necessary for development of endometrial cancer and further investigation using prospective datasets is warranted.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. 49 significantly differentially abundant pathways (KEGG level 3) within the serous cancer associated microbiome clusters imputed using PICRUSt.

(TIF)

Data Availability

Raw sequence fastq files used for this study have been uploaded to the sequence read archive under the NCBI BioProject ID: PRJNA758386. A link to this data can be found at: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov_bioproject_758386&d=DwICaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=bZTdvuHZchg_MRc9WzfTVA&m=r0gh1ej6BAnH6Bn9XNIheA1yKvKxi1QhPNPcdXmQf0M&s=m1pujJfeFU2plxeiZmGhJKcpmdt8YSVpsm9rxl-A8dA&e=.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Mert I., Walther-Antonio M., and Mariani A., “Case for a role of the microbiome in gynecologic cancers: Clinician’s perspective,” J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res., vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 1693–1704, 2018. doi: 10.1111/jog.13701 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Aagaard K., et al., “The Human Microbiome Project strategy for comprehensive sampling of the human microbiome and why it matters,” FASEB J., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 1012–1022, 2013. doi: 10.1096/fj.12-220806 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Huang B., Fettweis J. M., Brooks J. P., Jefferson K. K., and Buck G. A., “The changing landscape of the vaginal microbiome,” Clin. Lab. Med., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 747–761, 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.cll.2014.08.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.V Rajagopala S., et al., “Minireview The Human Microbiome and Cancer,” vol. 10, no. April, pp. 226–235, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Moss S. F., “The Clinical Evidence Linking Helicobacter pylori to Gastric Cancer,” CMGH. 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2016.12.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kostic A. D., et al., “Genomic analysis identifies association of Fusobacterium with colorectal carcinoma,” Genome Res., 2012. doi: 10.1101/gr.126573.111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Torgbor C., Awuah P., Deitsch K., Kalantari P., Duca K. A., and Thorley-Lawson D. A., “A Multifactorial Role for P. falciparum Malaria in Endemic Burkitt’s Lymphoma Pathogenesis,” PLoS Pathog., 2014. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1004170 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gall A., et al., “Bacterial composition of the human upper gastrointestinal tract microbiome is dynamic and associated with genomic instability in a Barrett’s esophagus cohort,” PLoS One, 2015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Schmidt B. L., et al., “Changes in abundance of oral microbiota associated with oral cancer,” PLoS One, 2014. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098741 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Chase D., Goulder A., Zenhausern F., Monk B., and Herbst-Kralovetz M., “The vaginal and gastrointestinal microbiomes in gynecologic cancers: A review of applications in etiology, symptoms and treatment,” Gynecol. Oncol., vol. 138, no. 1, pp. 190–200, 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.04.036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Wang Y., Zhang Y., Zhang Q., Chen H., and Feng Y., “Characterization of pelvic and cervical microbiotas from patients with pelvic inflammatory disease,” J. Med. Microbiol., 2018. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.000821 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Francescone R., Hou V., and Grivennikov S. I., “Microbiome, Inflammation, and Cancer,” Cancer J., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 181–189, 2014. doi: 10.1097/PPO.0000000000000048 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Rogers C. J., Prabhu K. S., and Vijay-Kumar M., “The microbiome and obesity-an established risk for certain types of cancer,” Cancer J, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 176–180, 2014. doi: 10.1097/PPO.0000000000000049 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Chen X. and Devaraj S., “Gut Microbiome in Obesity, Metabolic Syndrome, and Diabetes,” Current Diabetes Reports. 2018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wessels J. M., Felker A. M., Dupont H. A., and Kaushic C., “The relationship between sex hormones, the vaginal microbiome and immunity in HIV-1 susceptibility in women,” DMM Disease Models and Mechanisms. 2018. doi: 10.1242/dmm.035147 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Baker J. M., Al-Nakkash L., and Herbst-Kralovetz M. M., “Estrogen–gut microbiome axis: Physiological and clinical implications,” Maturitas. 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2017.06.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Van Der Pol W. J., et al., “In Silico and Experimental Evaluation of Primer Sets for Species-Level Resolution of the Vaginal Microbiota Using 16S Ribosomal RNA Gene Sequencing.,” J. Infect. Dis., vol. 219, no. 2, pp. 305–314, Jan. 2019. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiy508 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Schmieder R. and Edwards R., “Quality control and preprocessing of metagenomic datasets,” Bioinformatics, 2011. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hamady M., Walker J. J., Harris J. K., Gold N. J., and Knight R., “Error-correcting barcoded primers for pyrosequencing hundreds of samples in multiplex,” Nat. Methods, 2008. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1184 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Novo T., Sequence N., and Arrays C., “NovoCraft Short Read Alignment Package,” Program, no. November. 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Masella A. P., Bartram A. K., Truszkowski J. M., Brown D. G., and Neufeld J. D., “PANDAseq: Paired-end assembler for illumina sequences,” BMC Bioinformatics, 2012. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-13-31 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Bolyen E., et al., “QIIME 2: Reproducible, interactive, scalable, and extensible microbiome data science,” PeerJ, 2018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Rognes T., Flouri T., Nichols B., Quince C., and Mahé F., “VSEARCH: A versatile open source tool for metagenomics,” PeerJ, 2016. doi: 10.7717/peerj.2584 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.DeSantis T. Z., et al., “Greengenes, a chimera-checked 16S rRNA gene database and workbench compatible with ARB,” Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 2006. doi: 10.1128/AEM.03006-05 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.McMurdie P. J. and Holmes S., “Phyloseq: An R Package for Reproducible Interactive Analysis and Graphics of Microbiome Census Data,” PLoS One, 2013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.R. C. Team, “R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.” Vienna, Austria, 2013.
  • 27.Wickham H., ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Mandal S., Van Treuren W., White R. A., Eggesbø M., Knight R., and Peddada S. D., “Analysis of composition of microbiomes: a novel method for studying microbial composition,” Microb. Ecol. Heal. Dis., 2015. doi: 10.3402/mehd.v26.27663 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ward J. H., “Hierarchical Grouping to Optimize an Objective Function,” J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 1963. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Morton J. T., et al., “Establishing microbial composition measurement standards with reference frames.,” Nat. Commun., vol. 10, no. 1, p. 2719, Jun. 2019. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-10656-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Walther-António M. R. S., et al., “Potential contribution of the uterine microbiome in the development of endometrial cancer,” Genome Med., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 2016. doi: 10.1186/s13073-015-0257-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Tissier H., “Recherches sur la flore intestinale des nourrissons (etat normal et pathologique),” 1900. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Baker J. M., Chase D. M., and Herbst-Kralovetz M. M., “Uterine Microbiota: Residents, Tourists, or Invaders?,” Front. Immunol., vol. 9, p. 208, 2018. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.00208 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Eschenbach D. A., Rosene K., Tompkins L. S., Watkins H., and Gravett M. G., “Endometrial cultures obtained by a triple-lumen method from afebrile and febrile postpartum women,” J. Infect. Dis., 1986. doi: 10.1093/infdis/153.6.1038 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Parnell L. A., Briggs C. M., Cao B., Delannoy-Bruno O., Schrieffer A. E., and Mysorekar I. U., “Microbial communities in placentas from term normal pregnancy exhibit spatially variable profiles,” Sci. Rep., 2017. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-11514-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Hansen L. K., et al., “The cervical mucus plug inhibits, but does not block, the passage of ascending bacteria from the vagina during pregnancy,” Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand., 2014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Aagaard K., Ma J., Antony K. M., Ganu R., Petrosino J., and Versalovic J., “The placenta harbors a unique microbiome,” Sci. Transl. Med., 2014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Franasiak J. M., et al., “Endometrial microbiome at the time of embryo transfer: next-generation sequencing of the 16S ribosomal subunit,” J. Assist. Reprod. Genet., 2016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Walsh D. M., et al., “Postmenopause as a key factor in the composition of the Endometrial Cancer Microbiome (ECbiome),” Sci. Rep., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–16, 2019. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-37186-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Usyk M., et al., “Cervicovaginal microbiome and natural history of HPV in a longitudinal study,” PLoS Pathog., 2020. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1008376 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Nené N. R., et al., “Association between the cervicovaginal microbiome, BRCA1 mutation status, and risk of ovarian cancer: a case-control study,” Lancet Oncol., 2019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Ma B., Forney L. J., and Ravel J., “Vaginal microbiome: Rethinking health and disease,” Annu. Rev. Microbiol., 2012. doi: 10.1146/annurev-micro-092611-150157 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Winters A. D., et al., “Does the endometrial cavity have a molecular microbial signature?,” Sci. Rep., 2019. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-46173-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Doerflinger S. Y., Throop A. L., and Herbst-Kralovetz M. M., “Bacteria in the vaginal microbiome alter the innate immune response and barrier properties of the human vaginal epithelia in a species-specific manner,” J. Infect. Dis., 2014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Laniewski P., Gomez A., Hire G., So M., and Herbst-Kralovetz M. M., “Human three-dimensional endometrial epithelial cell model to study host interactions with vaginal bacteria and Neisseria gonorrhoeae,” Infect. Immun., 2017. doi: 10.1128/IAI.01049-16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Chatterjee S. and Burns T. F., “Targeting heat shock proteins in cancer: A promising therapeutic approach,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2017. doi: 10.3390/ijms18091978 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Engerud H., et al., “High level of HSF1 associates with aggressive endometrial carcinoma and suggests potential for HSP90 inhibitors,” Br. J. Cancer, 2014. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2014.262 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Douglas G., et al., “PICRUSt2: An improved and customizable approach for metagenome inference,” PICRUSt2 An Improv. extensible approach metagenome inference, 2019. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Suzanne L Ishaq

22 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-05233

Characterization of the endometrial, cervicovaginal and anorectal microbiota in post-menopausal women with endometrioid and serous endometrial cancers

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gressel,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Thank you for your patience during this unusually long review period, due to the pandemic, it has been difficult to find enough available reviewers and acquire timely reviews.  As such, I was only able to secure one set of reviews for your manuscript.  However, I agree with the reviewer's assessment of the submission, and with their recommendations to improve the manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 06 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Suzanne L. Ishaq, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study aimed to discover if the microbiome at three body sites is different among post-menopausal women undergoing hysterectomy. They swabbed these three sites, which then underwent 16S rRNA sequencing on the V4 region. QIIME2 was used for taxonomic identification at the genus level, and PICRUST was used for functional annotation.

Overall, this study found differences in alpha diversity at these three body sites across three clinical groups (endometrial cancer, uterine serous cancer, and other benign conditions). They also discovered potential metabolic pathways associated with these different clinical groups that shotgun metagenomics can confirm. Authors do a good job of stating their findings (without overstating) and tying them to biological mechanisms and clinical importance.

This study is unique in that it focuses on post-menopausal women, whereas much of the literature on endometrial microbiome focuses on those of reproductive age.

Page 9 line 58: use of the word dysbiosis: dysbiosis is a vague word that means a lot of different things depending on who you ask. It seems as though the phrase “the microbiome” could easily replace dysbiosis with the same meaning. I suggest either replacing the phrase “dysbiosis” or defining its use in the statement of translational relevance.

Page 10 line 78, introduction: manuscript citations 5 through 9 are studies linking “dysbiosis” to human cancer, however, upon further inspection, these citations appear to link specific taxa to the development of cancer. I don’t think these citations fit that manuscript’s definition of “dysbiosis” so I would change the word “dysbiosis” in this line.

Page 10 line 79 states “some authors postulate”; it is my understanding that we “should” be stating findings as “the research suggests/has evidence for”, etc, so as to not “call out” other authors in a manuscript.

Citation 11 on page 10 line 84: “vaginal dysbiosis has been link[ed] to bacterial vaginosis” This citation discusses PID, not BV. I’m assuming that this is the wrong citation here? I would also be careful about what citation you use, because the diverse community state type is associated with bacterial vaginosis, but is NOT itself a dysbiotic state.

Authors appear to use “dysbiosis”, “microbial disequilibrium”, and “microbial dysregulation” interchangeably. If all three terms are used to refer to the same phenomena, this needs to be explicitly stated. I would lean toward removing “dysbiosis” from the manuscript in favor of the other two terms due to the baggage that comes with the term “dysbiosis”

Page 12 line 151: it would be great to include rationale for why the V4 region was selected for 16S rRNA sequencing

Citation 27: page 12 line 163: I read the ANCOM pub just now, and this seems like a very interesting and statistically sound approach. It’s not clear to me from the manuscript if this is a program (like QIIME), a package (like phyloseq), or just a method that one implements themselves.

Page 13 line 193: a p value greater than 0.05 is not marginally significant; 0.45 would be marginally significant. I would change this language prior to publication.

Page 14 lines 201-203: It’s not clear to me what the significance of the “biological cluster [1|2]” is, and this doesn’t appear to be further discussed in the discussion section. I would either remove this, include it in the discussion/state it’s relevance, or, if I missed this within the manuscript, state it more clearly.

Page 15 lines 245-246: I don't remember reading in the methods/results that depleted vaginal Lactobacillus >> elevated uterine Pseudomonas in those with USC. I like the discussion of this (lots of lit, proposed biological mechanisms with clinical links), but don’t remember this in methods. Is this related to the “biological clustering”? If so, this isn’t currently clear in the manuscript. Should be more explicit in the manuscript prior to publication

I like your discussion and justifications in lines 265-271

I appreciate that there is not a discussion of community state types - it would be hard to draw conclusions of CSTs with the V4 region alone and in general, the CST does not provide clinically relevant information. I am explicitly stating this since there is often pressure to include CSTs in analysis despite the reasons stated here.

Some figures (fig 1, 4) may be hard to read for those with red-green colorblindness, it is worth adjusting the color palette before publication since this is a common condition.

Manuscript does not state where the data (fastq/fasta files) are available.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Emily F. Wissel

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Nov 5;16(11):e0259188. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259188.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


7 Sep 2021

Journal Requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

***We confirm that we have met the style requirements outlined in these documents.

Comments to the Author:

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

***We have added the 16S V4 amplicon sequencing data to SRA as described below.

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

***Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and for your insightful comments. We have done our best to address each of the comments in our revised manuscript.

Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study aimed to discover if the microbiome at three body sites is different among post-menopausal women undergoing hysterectomy. They swabbed these three sites, which then underwent 16S rRNA sequencing on the V4 region. QIIME2 was used for taxonomic identification at the genus level, and PICRUST was used for functional annotation.

Overall, this study found differences in alpha diversity at these three body sites across three clinical groups (endometrial cancer, uterine serous cancer, and other benign conditions). They also discovered potential metabolic pathways associated with these different clinical groups that shotgun metagenomics can confirm. Authors do a good job of stating their findings (without overstating) and tying them to biological mechanisms and clinical importance.

This study is unique in that it focuses on post-menopausal women, whereas much of the literature on endometrial microbiome focuses on those of reproductive age.

Page 9 line 58: use of the word dysbiosis: dysbiosis is a vague word that means a lot of different things depending on who you ask. It seems as though the phrase “the microbiome” could easily replace dysbiosis with the same meaning. I suggest either replacing the phrase “dysbiosis” or defining its use in the statement of translational relevance.

***Thank you for drawing attention to the semantic differences in the literature surrounding this term “dysbiosis.” While there is certainly precedent for this term in the literature regarding the gynecologic microbiome, you are correct that the term is not often well-defined or consistent across studies. We initially had planned to define this term in the “statement of translational relevance,” in light of your other comments below, we have replaced this term with “disruption in the normal gynecologic microbiome” which is our intended meaning in using the word.

Page 10 line 78, introduction: manuscript citations 5 through 9 are studies linking “dysbiosis” to human cancer, however, upon further inspection, these citations appear to link specific taxa to the development of cancer. I don’t think these citations fit that manuscript’s definition of “dysbiosis” so I would change the word “dysbiosis” in this line.

***Thank you. We have replaced all uses of the term “dysbiosis” in favor of “disruption in the normal gynecologic microbiome.”

Page 10 line 79 states “some authors postulate”; it is my understanding that we “should” be stating findings as “the research suggests/has evidence for”, etc, so as to not “call out” other authors in a manuscript.

***Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the manuscript to correct this verbiage.

Citation 11 on page 10 line 84: “vaginal dysbiosis has been link[ed] to bacterial vaginosis” This citation discusses PID, not BV. I’m assuming that this is the wrong citation here? I would also be careful about what citation you use, because the diverse community state type is associated with bacterial vaginosis, but is NOT itself a dysbiotic state.

***We thank the reviewers for the opportunity to clarify this point. The cited reference: Wang Y, Zhang Y, Zhang Q, Chen H, Feng Y. Characterization of pelvic and cervical microbiotas from patients with pelvic inflammatory disease. J Med Microbiol 2018; refers to a study from Zhejiang university in which 38 patients with pelvic inflammatory disease and 19 control patients without pelvic inflammatory disease had 16s rRNA amplicon profiling to test the hypothesis that microbes in the vagina and cervix can spread to the upper genital tract and cause PID. You are absolutely correct that this reference does not refer to bacterial vaginosis and we have corrected the preceding statement as follows: “The vagina is a complicated microbial niche that allows for survival and proliferation of a number of both beneficial bacteria as well as opportunistic pathogens. The “ascending infection theory” postulates that disruption in the vaginal microbiome can allow pathogenic bacteria to ascend into the upper genital tract and cause polymicrobial infections, resulting in inflammation of the uterus, fallopian tubes and ovaries, a condition known as pelvic inflammatory disease.”

Authors appear to use “dysbiosis”, “microbial disequilibrium”, and “microbial dysregulation” interchangeably. If all three terms are used to refer to the same phenomena, this needs to be explicitly stated. I would lean toward removing “dysbiosis” from the manuscript in favor of the other two terms due to the baggage that comes with the term “dysbiosis”

***Thank you. We have replaced all uses of the term “dysbiosis” in favor of “disruption in the normal gynecologic microbiome.”

Page 12 line 151: it would be great to include rationale for why the V4 region was selected for 16S rRNA sequencing

***We thank the reviewer for the opportunity to clarify the use of 16S V4 rRNA sequencing in this project. The V4 region is the most commonly used region, which allows for more streamlined comparison’s across studies, and was recently demonstrate to show the best taxonomic resolution between vaginal flora (see PMID: 30535155, Willian Van Der Pol 2019). We have added justification along with the relevant citing text in the methods section:

***Lines 199-201: The 16SV4 rRNA gene region was chosen because of it’s robust ability to effectively distinguish between vaginal bacterial species when compared to alternate 16S regions. ANCOM is a method. In a simple explanation it just uses all combinations of microbial ratios to overcome compositional limitations of the microbiome when characterized using standard next generation sequencing. It does a few additional things like dealing with structural zeros within the data, but the testing of ratios is the core of this method. We have added an additional reference that delves into the use of microbial ratios as a means of dealing with compositionality that discusses ANCOM and several other similar approaches: (PMID 31222023, Morton 2019).

***Lines 214-216: ANCOM was utilized in order to overcome the compositional limitations inherent to the study of the microbiome. For more details on this issue and how ANCOM addresses it see: (PMID 31222023, Morton 2019).

Page 13 line 193: a p value greater than 0.05 is not marginally significant; 0.45 would be marginally significant. I would change this language prior to publication.

***We completely agree. We have removed the term “marginally significant”.

Page 14 lines 201-203: It’s not clear to me what the significance of the “biological cluster [1|2]” is, and this doesn’t appear to be further discussed in the discussion section. I would either remove this, include it in the discussion/state it’s relevance, or, if I missed this within the manuscript, state it more clearly.

***In Figure 4 we utilized the biomarkers identified with ANCOM from across the three sampling sites to perform unsupervised clustering. This resulted in the two distinct sample clusters that appeared to consistently segregate Serous cases from controls. The observation of these clusters is relevant as the use of disease relevant markers across several body sites may provide more clinically relevant groups as opposed to CST clusters that are often reported in the literature. We have added a statement regarding this in the discussion:

Lines 273-274: Furthermore we have integrated biomarkers from across several sampled regions to show that we can effectively separate Serous cancers from controls using unsupervised clustering. This may suggest that the use of disease related biomarkers from across multiple anatomical regions may provide more clinically relevant groupings than the more broad CST categories.

Page 15 lines 245-246: I don't remember reading in the methods/results that depleted vaginal Lactobacillus >> elevated uterine Pseudomonas in those with USC. I like the discussion of this (lots of lit, proposed biological mechanisms with clinical links), but don’t remember this in methods. Is this related to the “biological clustering”? If so, this isn’t currently clear in the manuscript. Should be more explicit in the manuscript prior to publication

***We thank the reviewer for the chance to clarify our results as these are important points within the discussion. The Lactobacillus/Pseudomonas relationship is presented in figure 4 and mentioned in the figure caption “ “Biomarker Cluster 1” has a significant reduction of cervicovaginal Lactobacillus and Clostridium and a higher overall abundance of uterine Pseudomonas. ” We have added additional text in the results section in order to make this more clear:

***Lines 223-225: Biomarker cluster 1 had several bacterial genera elevated including uterine Pseudomonas while Biomarker cluster 2 was distinguished by a dominance of cervicovaginal Lactobacillus and Clostridium genera.

I like your discussion and justifications in lines 265-271

***Thank you very much.

I appreciate that there is not a discussion of community state types - it would be hard to draw conclusions of CSTs with the V4 region alone and in general, the CST does not provide clinically relevant information. I am explicitly stating this since there is often pressure to include CSTs in analysis despite the reasons stated here.

***We thank the reviewer for this statement and agree that CSTs do not tend to offer clinically useful categories. This was in part what prompted us to use identified biomarkers to see whether we can generate clusters that are more directly relevant to endometrial cancer using the three sampling sites. We have added additional comments regarding this as stated in the response above.

Some figures (fig 1, 4) may be hard to read for those with red-green colorblindness, it is worth adjusting the color palette before publication since this is a common condition.

Manuscript does not state where the data (fastq/fasta files) are available.

***We have uploaded the sequence fastqs to SRA (PRJNA758386) and added a link to the project in the new “Data Availability” section. We have also modified the figures to allow them to be interpreted by people with color blindness using the https://for-hue.herokuapp.com web site.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Suzanne L Ishaq

15 Oct 2021

Characterization of the endometrial, cervicovaginal and anorectal microbiota in post-menopausal women with endometrioid and serous endometrial cancers

PONE-D-21-05233R1

Dear Dr. Gressel,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Suzanne L. Ishaq, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Authors addressed all comments fully. They added clarifications to the manuscript about why they selected the V4 region for 16S sequencing, clarified that "dysbiotic" referred to a disruption of the gynecological microbiome, clarified some of the background citations, further describes the biomarker clusters and their clinical relevance, and have made all their data publicly available.

This paper has novel findings about the microbiome at three body sites across three clinical conditions. These findings can pave they way for future clinical interventions and studies around these conditions through further evaluation of the identified biomarker clusters.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Emily F. Wissel

Acceptance letter

Suzanne L Ishaq

20 Oct 2021

PONE-D-21-05233R1

Characterization of the endometrial, cervicovaginal and anorectal microbiota in post-menopausal women with endometrioid and serous endometrial cancers

Dear Dr. Gressel:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Suzanne L. Ishaq

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. 49 significantly differentially abundant pathways (KEGG level 3) within the serous cancer associated microbiome clusters imputed using PICRUSt.

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Raw sequence fastq files used for this study have been uploaded to the sequence read archive under the NCBI BioProject ID: PRJNA758386. A link to this data can be found at: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov_bioproject_758386&d=DwICaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=bZTdvuHZchg_MRc9WzfTVA&m=r0gh1ej6BAnH6Bn9XNIheA1yKvKxi1QhPNPcdXmQf0M&s=m1pujJfeFU2plxeiZmGhJKcpmdt8YSVpsm9rxl-A8dA&e=.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES