The Utility of Voided Urine Samples as a Proxy for the Vaginal Microbiome and for the Prediction of Bacterial Vaginosis

Abstract

Recent work has shown that the vaginal microbiome exerts a strong impact on women's gynecological health. However, collection of vaginal specimens is invasive and requires previous clinical training or the involvement of a trained clinician. In contrast, urine sample collection is routine and noninvasive and does not require involvement of a clinician. We sought to compare the vaginal and urogenital microbiomes to assess the utility of voided urine samples as a proxy for the vaginal microbiome. Paired urogenital and vaginal samples were collected from pregnant women and characterized by 16S rRNA taxonomic profiling. We examined diversities and compositions of paired urogenital and vaginal microbiomes using five discrete strategies to explore the similarity between the vaginal and urogenital microbiomes. A strategy comparing the paired urogenital and vaginal microbiomes in which taxa were assigned using the STIRRUPS database and urine-specific taxa were removed showed no significant difference in diversity and composition between the paired urogenital and vaginal microbiomes. Moreover, the relative abundances of common vaginal taxa were linearly correlated with those in the paired urogenital microbiomes. These similarities suggest that voided urine samples could represent a noninvasive protocol for accurate profiling of the vaginal microbiome with likely clinical applications. Finally, a machine learning model was established in which the voided urine microbiome was compared favorably to the vaginal microbiome in predicting bacterial vaginosis.

The association of maternal factors with the neonatal microbiota and health

“…Water controls were collected and sequenced with other samples in every sequencing in the MOMS-PI project. Similar to the previously reported 46 , most of the 155 control samples have very low sequencing reads (Fig. S8a), and only limited taxa have high levels of read counts (Fig.…”

Critical review of 16S rRNA gene sequencing workflow in microbiome studies: From primer selection to advanced data analysis

“…Although more extensive public databases like GenBank (Clark et al., 2016) and RDP (Cole et al., 2009) return named matches for a slightly higher fraction of sequences identified in analyses of clinical samples, CORE and eHOMD are much more likely to do so accurately (Griffen et al., 2011). Moreover, as shown in an investigation on the usefulness of a vaginal‐specific database to reflect the vaginal microbiome, the use of niche‐specific databases is appropriate to reduce the possibility of some taxa being misassigned to other taxa from different environments (Zhu et al., 2022). Thus, researchers can focus their studies on a specific microbiome.…”