Studies of the human microbiome have revealed that even healthy individuals differ remarkably in the microbes that occupy habitats such as the gut, skin, and vagina. Much of this diversity remains unexplained, although diet, environment, host genetics, and early microbial exposure have all been implicated. Accordingly, to characterize the ecology of human-associated microbial communities, the Human Microbiome Project has analyzed the largest cohort and set of distinct, clinically relevant body habitats to date. We found the diversity and abundance of each habitat’s signature microbes to vary widely even among healthy subjects, with strong niche specialization both within and among individuals. The project encountered an estimated 81–99% of the genera, enzyme families, and community configurations occupied by the healthy Western microbiome. Metagenomic carriage of metabolic pathways was stable among individuals despite variation in community structure, and ethnic/racial background proved to be one of the strongest associations of both pathways and microbes with clinical metadata. These results thus delineate the range of structural and functional configurations normal in the microbial communities of a healthy population, enabling future characterization of the epidemiology, ecology, and translational applications of the human microbiome.

A variety of microbial communities and their genes (microbiome) exist throughout the human body, playing fundamental roles in human health and disease. The NIH funded Human Microbiome Project (HMP) Consortium has established a population-scale framework which catalyzed significant development of metagenomic protocols resulting in a broad range of quality-controlled resources and data including standardized methods for creating, processing and interpreting distinct types of high-throughput metagenomic data available to the scientific community. Here we present resources from a population of 242 healthy adults sampled at 15 to 18 body sites up to three times, which to date, have generated 5,177 microbial taxonomic profiles from 16S rRNA genes and over 3.5 Tb of metagenomic sequence. In parallel, approximately 800 human-associated reference genomes have been sequenced. Collectively, these data represent the largest resource to date describing the abundance and variety of the human microbiome, while providing a platform for current and future studies.

T o the woman, God said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in child bearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." Genesis 3:16There is now a well-established body of literature documenting the pervasive inadequate treatment of pain in this country.' There have also been allegations, and some data, supporting the notion that women are more likely than men to be undertreated or inappropriately diagnosed and treated for their pain.One particularly troublesome study indicated that women are more likely to be given sedatives for their pain and men to be given pain medication.^ Speculation as to why this difference might exist has included the following: Women complain more than men; women are not accurate reporters of their pain; men are more stoic so that when they do complain of pain, "it's real"; and women are better able to tolerate pain or have better coping skills than men.In this article, we report on the biological studies that have looked at differences in how men and women report and experience pain to determine if there is sufficient evidence to show that gender^ differences in pain perception have biological origins. We then explore the influence of cognition and emotions on pain perception and how socialized gender differences may influence the way men and women perceive pain. Next, we review the literature on how men and women are diagnosed and treated for their pain to determine whether differences exist here as well. Finally, we discuss some of the underlying assumptions re- garding why treatment differences might exist, looking to the sociologic and feminist literature for a framework to explain these assumptions.We conclude, from the research reviewed, that men and women appear to experience and respond to pain differendy, but that determining whether this difference is due to biological versus psychosocial origins is difficult due to the complex, multicausal nature ofthe pain experience. Women are more likely to seek treatment for chronic pain, but are also more likely to be inadequately treated by health-care providers, who, at least initially, discount women's verbal pain reports and attribute more import to biological pain contributors than emotional or psychological pain contributors. We suggest ways in which the health-care system and healthcare providers might better respond to both women and men who experience persistent pain. Do MEN AND WOMEN EXPERIENCE PAIN DIFFERENTLY?The question of whether men and women experience pain differently is a relatively recent one. Until about a decade ago, many clinical research studies excluded women, resulting in a lack of information about gender differences in disease prevalence, progression, and response to treatment.** Research on sex-based and gender-based differences in pain response has mounted over the past several years, partially motivated by 1993 legislation mandating the inclusion of women in research sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.5Three review articles ...

T o the woman, God said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in child bearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." Genesis 3:16There is now a well-established body of literature documenting the pervasive inadequate treatment of pain in this country.' There have also been allegations, and some data, supporting the notion that women are more likely than men to be undertreated or inappropriately diagnosed and treated for their pain.One particularly troublesome study indicated that women are more likely to be given sedatives for their pain and men to be given pain medication.^ Speculation as to why this difference might exist has included the following: Women complain more than men; women are not accurate reporters of their pain; men are more stoic so that when they do complain of pain, "it's real"; and women are better able to tolerate pain or have better coping skills than men.In this article, we report on the biological studies that have looked at differences in how men and women report and experience pain to determine if there is sufficient evidence to show that gender^ differences in pain perception have biological origins. We then explore the influence of cognition and emotions on pain perception and how socialized gender differences may influence the way men and women perceive pain. Next, we review the literature on how men and women are diagnosed and treated for their pain to determine whether differences exist here as well. Finally, we discuss some of the underlying assumptions re- garding why treatment differences might exist, looking to the sociologic and feminist literature for a framework to explain these assumptions.We conclude, from the research reviewed, that men and women appear to experience and respond to pain differendy, but that determining whether this difference is due to biological versus psychosocial origins is difficult due to the complex, multicausal nature ofthe pain experience. Women are more likely to seek treatment for chronic pain, but are also more likely to be inadequately treated by health-care providers, who, at least initially, discount women's verbal pain reports and attribute more import to biological pain contributors than emotional or psychological pain contributors. We suggest ways in which the health-care system and healthcare providers might better respond to both women and men who experience persistent pain. Do MEN AND WOMEN EXPERIENCE PAIN DIFFERENTLY?The question of whether men and women experience pain differently is a relatively recent one. Until about a decade ago, many clinical research studies excluded women, resulting in a lack of information about gender differences in disease prevalence, progression, and response to treatment.** Research on sex-based and gender-based differences in pain response has mounted over the past several years, partially motivated by 1993 legislation mandating the inclusion of women in research sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.5Three review articles ...

No abstract