Bacterial vaginosis biomarkers: analytical review
DOI: 10.32364/2618-8430-2023-6-4-8
A.A. Khryanin1,2
1Novosibirsk State Medical University, Novosibirsk, Russian Federation
2Association of Obstetricians-Gynecologists and Dermatovenerologists, Novosibirsk, Russian Federation
The microbiome of healthy female reproductive tract is dominated by bacteria producing lactic acid and hydrogen peroxide, which provide infection control by maintaining a low pH level. Qualitative and quantitative changes in the bacterial composition of the vaginal microbiome can lead to the pathology occurrence — bacterial vaginosis (BV). BV increases the risk of contracting sexually transmitted infections, such as HIV, gonococcal, chlamydial, papillomavirus infections, as well as negatively affects a woman's reproductive health. In pregnant women, BV can lead to chorioamnionitis and adverse pregnancy outcomes, including premature rupture of membranes and premature birth. Conventionally, clinical and microscopic methods have been used to diagnose BV. However, these methods require qualified personnel, time expenditure and are characterized by low sensitivity and specificity. Modern diagnostic capabilities, including highly sensitive and specific methods based on the identification of new biomarkers in the vaginal microbiome and vaginal metabolome, can significantly improve the BV diagnosis. The analytical review discusses promising areas of BV laboratory diagnostics. Besides, computer algorithms (AI) can be used to automate the BV diagnosis based on microscopy results.
Keywords: bacterial vaginosis, laboratory diagnostics, vaginal microbiome, artificial intelligence.
For citation: Khryanin A.A. Bacterial vaginosis biomarkers: analytical review. Russian Journal of Woman and Child Health. 2023;6(4):374–379 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.32364/2618-8430-2023-6-4-8.
About the author:
Alexey A. Khryanin — Dr. Sc. (Med.), Professor of the Department of Dermatovenerology and Cosmetology, Novosibirsk State Medical University; 52, Krasny Ave, Novosibirsk, 630091, Russian Federation; President of the Association of Obstetricians-Gynecologists and Dermatovenerologists; 55, Lenin str., Novosibirsk, 630004, Russian Federation; ORCID iD 0000-0001-9248-8303.
Contact information: Alexey A. Khryanin, e-mail: khryanin@mail.ru.
Financial Disclosure: the author has no financial or property interest in any material or method mentioned.
There is no conflict of interest.
Received 02.10.2023.
Revised 23.10.2023.
Accepted 14.11.2023.
2. Хрянин А.А., Кнорринг Г.Ю., Бочарова В.К. Нарушение вагинального микробиома и риск заражения ВИЧ-инфекцией у женщин. ВИЧ-инфекция и иммуносупрессии. 2023;15(1):23–31. DOI: 10.22328/2077-9828-2023-15-1-23-31. [Khryanin A.A., Knorring G.Yu., Bocharova V.K. Violation of the vaginal microbiome and the risk of HIV infection in women. HIV Infection and Immunosuppressive Disorders. 2023;15(1):23–31 (in Russ.)]. DOI: 10.22328/2077-9828-2023-15-1-23-31.
3. Хрянин А.А., Кнорринг Г.Ю. Бактериальный вагиноз: дискуссионные вопросы. Вестник дерматологии и венерологии. 2022;98(1):13–18. DOI: 10.25208/vdv1224. [Khryanin A.A., Knorring G.Yu. Bacterial vaginosis: controversial issues. Vestnik dermatologii i venerologii. 2022;98(1):13–18 (in Russ.)]. DOI: 10.25208/vdv1224.
4. Amsel R., Totten P.A., Spiegel C.A. et al. Nonspecific vaginitis. Diagnostic criteria and microbial and epidemiologic associations. Am J Med. 1983;74(1):14–22. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9343(83)91112-9.
5. Klebanoff M.A., Schwebke J.R., Zhang J. et al. Vulvovaginal symptoms in women with bacterial vaginosis. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(2):267–272. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000134783.98382.b0.
6. Modak T., Arora P., Agnes C. et al. Diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis in cases of abnormal vaginal discharge: comparison of clinical and microbiological criteria. J Infect Dev Ctries. 2011;5(5):353–360. DOI: 10.3855/jidc.1153.
7. Nugent R.P., Krohn M.A., Hillier S.L. Reliability of diagnosing bacterial vaginosis is improved by a standardized method of gram stain interpretation. J Clin Microbiol. 1991;29(2):297–301. DOI: 10.1128/jcm.29.2.297-301.1991.
8. Vaneechoutte M., Guschin A., Van Simaey L. et al. Emended description of Gardnerella vaginalis and description of Gardnerella leopoldii sp. nov., Gardnerella piotii sp. nov. and Gardnerella swidsinskii sp. nov., with delineation of 13 genomic species within the genus Gardnerella. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2019;69(3):679–687. DOI: 10.1099/ijsem.0.003200.
9. Redelinghuys M.J., Geldenhuys J., Jung H., Kock M.M. Bacterial Vaginosis: Current Diagnostic Avenues and Future Opportunities. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2020;10:354. DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2020.00354.
10. Adzitey F., Huda N., Ali G.R. Molecular techniques for detecting and typing of bacteria, advantages and application to foodborne pathogens isolated from ducks. 3 Biotech. 2013;3(2):97–107. DOI: 10.1007/s13205-012-0074-4.
11. Coleman J.S., Gaydos C.A. Molecular Diagnosis of Bacterial Vaginosis: an Update. J Clin Microbiol. 2018;56(9):e00342–e00418. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00342-18.
12. Yeruva T., Rajkumar H., Donugama V. Vaginal lactobacilli profile in pregnant women with normal & abnormal vaginal flora. Indian J Med Res. 2017;146(4):534–540. DOI: 10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_774_16.
13. Janulaitiene M., Paliulyte V., Grinceviciene S. et al. Prevalence and distribution of Gardnerella vaginalis subgroups in women with and without bacterial vaginosis. BMC Infect Dis. 2017;17(1):394. DOI: 10.1186/s12879-017-2501-y.
14. Ahmed A., Earl J., Retchless A. et al. Comparative genomic analyses of 17 clinical isolates of Gardnerella vaginalis provide evidence of multiple genetically isolated clades consistent with subspeciation into genovars. J Bacteriol. 2012;194(15):3922-3937. doi:10.1128/JB.00056-12. 15. Thompson A., Timm K., Borders N. et al. Diagnostic performance of two molecular assays for the detection of vaginitis in symptomatic women. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2020;39(1):39–44. DOI: 10.1007/s10096-019-03694-w.
16. Jespers V., van de Wijgert J., Cools P. et al. The significance of Lactobacillus crispatus and L. vaginalis for vaginal health and the negative effect of recent sex: a cross-sectional descriptive study across groups of African women. BMC Infect Dis. 2015;15:115. DOI: 10.1186/s12879-015-0825-z.
17. Jespers V., Menten J., Smet H. et al. Quantification of bacterial species of the vaginal microbiome in different groups of women, using nucleic acid amplification tests. BMC Microbiol. 2012;12:83. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2180-12-83.
18. Tarracchini C., Lugli G.A., Mancabelli L. et al. Assessing the Geno-mic Variability of Gardnerella vaginalis through Comparative Genomic Analyses: Evolutionary and Ecological Implications. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2020;87(1):e0218–e0220. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.02188-20.
19. Castro J., Jefferson K.K., Cerca N. Genetic Heterogeneity and Taxonomic Diversity among Gardnerella Species. Trends Microbiol. 2020;28(3):202–211. DOI: 10.1016/j.tim.2019.10.002.
20. Doroftei B., Ilie O.D., Armeanu T. et al. A Narrative Review Discussing the Obstetric Repercussions Due to Alterations of Personalized Bacterial Sites Developed within the Vagina, Cervix, and Endometrium. J Clin Med. 2023;12(15):5069. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12155069.
21. Holm J.B., Carter K.A., Ravel J., Brotman R.M. Lactobacillus iners and genital health: molecular clues to an enigmatic vaginal species. Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2023;25(4):67–75. DOI: 10.1007/s11908-023-00798-5.
22. Church D.L., Cerutti L., Gürtler A. et al. Performance and Application of 16S rRNA Gene Cycle Sequencing for Routine Identification of Bacteria in the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2020;33(4):e00053–e00119. DOI: 10.1128/CMR.00053-19.
23. Watts G.S., Youens-Clark K., Slepian M.J. et al. 16S rRNA gene sequencing on a benchtop sequencer: accuracy for identification of clinically important bacteria. J Appl Microbiol. 2017;123(6):1584–1596. DOI: 10.1111/jam.13590.
24. Culbreath K., Melanson S., Gale J. et al. Validation and Retrospective Clinical Evaluation of a Quantitative 16S rRNA Gene Metagenomic Sequencing Assay for Bacterial Pathogen Detection in Body Fluids. J Mol Diagn. 2019;21(5):913–923. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2019.05.002.
25. Peters D.L., Wang W., Zhang X. et al. Metaproteomic and Metabolomic Approaches for Characterizing the Gut Microbiome. Proteomics. 2019;19(16):e1800363. DOI: 10.1002/pmic.201800363.
26. Ferreira C.S.T., da Silva M.G., de Pontes L.G. et al. Protein Content of Cervicovaginal Fluid Is Altered During Bacterial Vaginosis. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2018;22(2):147–151. DOI: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000367.
27. Parolin C., Foschi C., Laghi L. et al. Insights Into Vaginal Bacterial Communities and Metabolic Profiles of Chlamydia trachomatis Infection: Positioning Between Eubiosis and Dysbiosis. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:600. DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.00600.
28. Pruski P., MacIntyre D.A., Lewis H.V. et al. Medical Swab Analysis Using Desorption Electrospray Ionization Mass Spectrometry: A Noninvasive Approach for Mucosal Diagnostics. Anal Chem. 2017;89(3):1540–1550. DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.6b03405.
29. Stafford G.P., Parker J.L., Amabebe E. et al. Spontaneous Preterm Birth Is Associated with Differential Expression of Vaginal Metabolites by Lactobacilli-Dominated Microflora. Front Physiol. 2017;8:615. DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2017.00615.
30. Borgogna J.C., Shardell M.D., Grace S.G. et al. Biogenic Amines Increase the Odds of Bacterial Vaginosis and Affect the Growth of and Lactic Acid Production by Vaginal Lactobacillus spp. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2021;87(10):e03068–e03120. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.03068-20.
31. Mlisana K., Naicker N., Werner L. et al. Symptomatic vaginal discharge is a poor predictor of sexually transmitted infections and genital tract inflammation in high-risk women in South Africa. J Infect Dis. 2012;206(1):6–14. DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jis298.
32. Kyongo J.K., Crucitti T., Menten J. et al. Cross-Sectional Analysis of Selected Genital Tract Immunological Markers and Molecular Vaginal Microbiota in Sub-Saharan African Women, with Relevance to HIV Risk and Prevention. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2015;22(5):526–538. DOI: 10.1128/CVI.00762-14.
33. Gosmann C., Anahtar M.N., Handley S.A. et al. Lactobacillus-Deficient Cervicovaginal Bacterial Communities Are Associated with Increased HIV Acquisition in Young South African Women. Immunity. 2017;46(1):29–37. DOI: 10.1016/j.immuni.2016.12.013.
34. Хрянин А.А., Кнорринг Г.Ю. Современные представления о бактериальном вагинозе. Гинекология. 2021;23(1):37–42. DOI: 10.26442/20795696.2021.1.200680. [Khryanin A.A., Knorring G.Yu. Modern ideas about bacterial vaginosis. Gynecology. 2021;23(1):37–42 (in Russ.)]. DOI: 10.26442/20795696.2021.1.200680.
35. Anahtar M.N., Byrne E.H., Doherty K.E. et al. Cervicovaginal bacteria are a major modulator of host inflammatory responses in the female genital tract. Immunity. 2015;42(5):965–976. DOI: 10.1016/j.immuni.2015.04.019.
36. Gosmann C., Anahtar M.N., Handley S.A. et al. Lactobacillus-Deficient Cervicovaginal Bacterial Communities Are Associated with Increased HIV Acquisition in Young South African Women. Immunity. 2017;46(1):29–37. DOI: 10.1016/j.immuni.2016.12.013.
37. Beck D., Foster J.A. Machine learning techniques accurately classify microbial communities by bacterial vaginosis characteristics. PLoS One. 2014;9(2):e87830. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087830.
38. Song Y., He L., Zhou F. et al. Segmentation, Splitting, and Classification of Overlapping Bacteria in Microscope Images for Automatic Bacterial Vaginosis Diagnosis. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2017;21(4):1095–1104. DOI: 10.1109/JBHI.2016.2594239.
39. Jarvis J.P., Rains D., Kradel S.J. et al. Diagnosing bacterial vaginosis with a novel, clinically-actionable molecular diagnostic tool. J Appl Microb Res. 2018;1(2):01–08. DOI: 10.1101/334177.
40. Swidsinski А., Loening-Baucke V., Swidsinski S. et al. Clue Cells and Pseudo Clue Cells in Different Morphotypes of Bacterial Vaginosis. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2022:12:905739. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.905739.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons «Attribution» 4.0 License.
