<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.3 20210610//EN" "JATS-journalpublishing1-3.dtd">
<article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.3" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xml:lang="en"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">mvjr</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title xml:lang="en">Medical Herald of the South of Russia</journal-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Медицинский вестник Юга России</trans-title></trans-title-group></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="ppub">2219-8075</issn><issn pub-type="epub">2618-7876</issn><publisher><publisher-name>The Rostov State Medical University</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.21886/2219-8075-2023-14-3-5-15</article-id><article-id custom-type="elpub" pub-id-type="custom">mvjr-1735</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Research Article</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="section-heading" xml:lang="en"><subject>3.1.4. OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="section-heading" xml:lang="ru"><subject>3.1.4. АКУШЕРСТВО И ГИНЕКОЛОГИЯ</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Vaginal and endometrial microbiome: evaluation, effect on embryo implantation</article-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Вагинальный и эндометриальный микробиом: оценка, влияние на имплантацию эмбриона</trans-title></trans-title-group></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes"><contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0938-8286</contrib-id><name-alternatives><name name-style="eastern" xml:lang="ru"><surname>Куценко</surname><given-names>И. И.</given-names></name><name name-style="western" xml:lang="en"><surname>Kutsenko</surname><given-names>I. I.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><bio xml:lang="ru"><p>Куценко Ирина Игоревна – доктор медицинских наук, профессор, заведующая кафедрой акушерства, гинекологии и перинатологии.</p><p>Краснодар</p></bio><bio xml:lang="en"><p>Irina I. Kutsenko - Dr. Sci. (Med.), Prof., Head of the Chair of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology of the Kuban State Medical University.</p><p>Krasnodar</p></bio><email xlink:type="simple">luzum69@mail.ru</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff-1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes"><contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8576-1359</contrib-id><name-alternatives><name name-style="eastern" xml:lang="ru"><surname>Боровиков</surname><given-names>И. О.</given-names></name><name name-style="western" xml:lang="en"><surname>Borovikov</surname><given-names>I. O.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><bio xml:lang="ru"><p>Боровиков Игорь Олегович - доктор медицинских наук, доцент, доцент кафедры акушерства, гинекологии и перинатологии.</p><p>Краснодар</p></bio><bio xml:lang="en"><p>Igor O. Borovikov - Dr. Sci. (Med.), As. Prof. of the Chair of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology of the Kuban State Medical University.</p><p>Krasnodar</p></bio><email xlink:type="simple">bio2302@mail.ru</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff-1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes"><contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8987-7375</contrib-id><name-alternatives><name name-style="eastern" xml:lang="ru"><surname>Кравцова</surname><given-names>Е. И.</given-names></name><name name-style="western" xml:lang="en"><surname>Kravtsova</surname><given-names>E. I.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><bio xml:lang="ru"><p>Кравцова Елена Иосифовна – кандидат медицинских наук, доцент, доцент кафедры акушерства, гинекологии и перинатологии.</p><p>Краснодар</p></bio><bio xml:lang="en"><p>Elena I. Kravtsova - PhD (Med.), Assoc. Prof., Chair of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology, Kuban State Medical University.</p><p>Krasnodar</p></bio><email xlink:type="simple">luzum69@mail.ru</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff-1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes"><contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8388-8644</contrib-id><name-alternatives><name name-style="eastern" xml:lang="ru"><surname>Булгакова</surname><given-names>В. П.</given-names></name><name name-style="western" xml:lang="en"><surname>Bulgakova</surname><given-names>V. P.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><bio xml:lang="ru"><p>Булгакова Вера Павловна - аспирант кафедры акушерства, гинекологии и перинатологии.</p><p>Краснодар</p></bio><bio xml:lang="en"><p>Vera P. Bulgakova - graduate student of the Chair of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology at the Kuban State Medical University.</p><p>Krasnodar</p></bio><email xlink:type="simple">bvp1082@mail.ru</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff-1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes"><contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7275-9388</contrib-id><name-alternatives><name name-style="eastern" xml:lang="ru"><surname>Боровикова</surname><given-names>О. И.</given-names></name><name name-style="western" xml:lang="en"><surname>Borovikova</surname><given-names>O. I.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><bio xml:lang="ru"><p>Боровикова Ольга Игоревна - аспирант кафедры акушерства, гинекологии и перинатологии.</p><p>Краснодар</p></bio><bio xml:lang="en"><p>Olga I. Borovikova - graduate student of the Chair of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology at the Kuban State Medical University.</p><p>Krasnodar</p></bio><email xlink:type="simple">borovikovaoi@oxy-center.ru</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff-1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes"><contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8008-5280</contrib-id><name-alternatives><name name-style="eastern" xml:lang="ru"><surname>Черемных</surname><given-names>Р. В.</given-names></name><name name-style="western" xml:lang="en"><surname>Cheremnykh</surname><given-names>R. V.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><bio xml:lang="ru"><p>Черемных Рушана Вадимовна - аспирант кафедры акушерства, гинекологии и перинатологии, Кубанский государственный медицинский университет.</p><p>Краснодар</p></bio><bio xml:lang="en"><p>Rushana V. Cheremnykh - graduate student of the Chair of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology at the Kuban State Medical University.</p><p>Krasnodar</p></bio><email xlink:type="simple">rushana.tcheremnih@yandex.ru</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff-1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes"><contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5749-4193</contrib-id><name-alternatives><name name-style="eastern" xml:lang="ru"><surname>Андреева</surname><given-names>А. А.</given-names></name><name name-style="western" xml:lang="en"><surname>Andreeva</surname><given-names>A. A.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><bio xml:lang="ru"><p>Андреева Анастасия Александровна - аспирант кафедры акушерства, гинекологии и перинатологии.</p><p>Краснодар</p></bio><bio xml:lang="en"><p>Anastasia A. Andreeva - graduate student of the Chair of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology at the Kuban State Medical University.</p><p>Krasnodar</p></bio><email xlink:type="simple">nastyagorbulina@bk.ru</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff-1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes"><contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2543-6348</contrib-id><name-alternatives><name name-style="eastern" xml:lang="ru"><surname>Боровиков</surname><given-names>М. И.</given-names></name><name name-style="western" xml:lang="en"><surname>Borovikov</surname><given-names>M. I.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><bio xml:lang="ru"><p>Боровиков Максим Игоревич – студент.</p><p>Краснодар</p></bio><bio xml:lang="en"><p>Maksim I. Borovikov - student of the Kuban State Technological University.</p><p>Krasnodar</p></bio><email xlink:type="simple">agyaxgy@mail.ru</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff-2"/></contrib></contrib-group><aff-alternatives id="aff-1"><aff xml:lang="ru"><institution>Кубанский государственный медицинский университет</institution><country>Россия</country></aff><aff xml:lang="en"><institution>Kuban State Medical University</institution><country>Russian Federation</country></aff></aff-alternatives><aff-alternatives id="aff-2"><aff xml:lang="ru"><institution>Кубанский государственный технологический университет</institution><country>Россия</country></aff><aff xml:lang="en"><institution>Kuban State Technological University</institution><country>Russian Federation</country></aff></aff-alternatives><pub-date pub-type="collection"><year>2023</year></pub-date><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>27</day><month>07</month><year>2023</year></pub-date><volume>14</volume><issue>3</issue><fpage>5</fpage><lpage>15</lpage><permissions><copyright-statement>Copyright &amp;#x00A9; Kutsenko I.I., Borovikov I.O., Kravtsova E.I., Bulgakova V.P., Borovikova O.I., Cheremnykh R.V., Andreeva A.A., Borovikov M.I., 2023</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2023</copyright-year><copyright-holder xml:lang="ru">Куценко И.И., Боровиков И.О., Кравцова Е.И., Булгакова В.П., Боровикова О.И., Черемных Р.В., Андреева А.А., Боровиков М.И.</copyright-holder><copyright-holder xml:lang="en">Kutsenko I.I., Borovikov I.O., Kravtsova E.I., Bulgakova V.P., Borovikova O.I., Cheremnykh R.V., Andreeva A.A., Borovikov M.I.</copyright-holder><license license-type="creative-commons-attribution" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" xlink:type="simple"><license-p>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.</license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://www.medicalherald.ru/jour/article/view/1735">https://www.medicalherald.ru/jour/article/view/1735</self-uri><abstract><p>Objective: assessment of the microbiome of the vagina and uterine cavity using a uterine catheter with a collet guide in infertile patients before the in vitro fertilization procedure. Materials and methods: samples of vaginal and endometrial scrapings obtained from 73 infertile women who had planned an in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedure were taken and studied. The samples were analyzed by V3-V4-V6 regions using the 16S rRNA gene sequencing method. Results: significant differences were found in the taxonomy of the endometrium and vaginal microbiome - coincidences in microbiological composition were detected in 18.2% of patients. Endometrial lactobacillus-dominant microbiocenoses occurred in 24.8% of women, vaginal — in 56.7%. Comparisons between patients with negative and positive IVF (onset of biological pregnancy) results failed to identify any microorganism associated with the success of the procedure, with endometrial microbiota biodiversity being higher among women who successfully exercised their reproductive function. The Shannon Equality Index (J) for pregnant and non-pregnant women was 0.76 (0.57–0.87) and 0.55 (0.51–0.64), respectively (p=0.002). Conclusion: the use of a developed uterine catheter with a collet guide for an adequate assessment of the endometrial microbiome is promising and justified. The correct assessment of the endometrial microbiocenosis contributes to the adequate diagnosis of pathological processes occurring in the uterine cavity, which will allow for proper therapy aimed at increasing the receptivity of the endometrium and, in the future, contributing to the realization of the reproductive function of a woman. </p></abstract><trans-abstract xml:lang="ru"><p>Цель: оценка микробиома влагалища и полости матки с использованием маточного катетера с цанговой направляющей у инфертильных пациенток перед проведением процедуры экстракорпорального оплодотворения. Материалы и методы: были взяты и изучены образцы вагинального и эндометриального соскобов, полученные от 73 инфертильных женщин, запланировавших процедуру экстракорпорального оплодотворения (ЭКО). Образцы были проанализированы областями V3-V4-V6 с помощью метода секвенирования гена 16S рРНК. Результаты: обнаружены существенные различия в таксономии эндометрия и вагинального микробиома. Совпадения по микробиологическому составу выявлены у 18,2% пациенток. Эндометриальные лактобацилло-доминантные микробиоценозы встречались у 24,8% женщин, вагинальные — у 56,7%. Сравнение между пациентками с отрицательными и положительными результатами ЭКО (наступление биологической беременности) не смогло идентифицировать какой-либо микроорганизм, связанный с успехом процедуры, при этом биоразнообразие микробиоты эндометрия было выше среди женщин, успешно реализовавших свою репродуктивную функцию. Индекс равноправия Шеннона (J) у беременных и небеременных женщин составил 0,76 (0,57–0,87) и 0,55 (0,51–0,64) соответственно (p=0,002). Заключение: использование разработанного маточного катетера с цанговой направляющей для адекватной оценки микробиома эндометрия является перспективным и обоснованным. Правильная оценка эндометриального микробиоценоза способствует адекватной диагностике патологических процессов, происходящих в полости матки, что позволит провести правильную терапию, направленную на повышение рецептивности эндометрия и в дальнейшем способствовать реализации репродуктивной функции женщины.</p></trans-abstract><kwd-group xml:lang="ru"><kwd>эндометриальный микробиом</kwd><kwd>инфертильность</kwd><kwd>секвенирование гена 16S рРНК</kwd><kwd>экстракорпоральное оплодотворение</kwd><kwd>двухпросветный маточный зонд с цангой</kwd></kwd-group><kwd-group xml:lang="en"><kwd>endometrial microbiome</kwd><kwd>infertility</kwd><kwd>16S rRNA gene sequencing</kwd><kwd>in vitro fertilization</kwd><kwd>two-lumen uterine probe with collet</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec><title>Introduction</title><p>The reproductive microbiome is an emerging topic in the field of obstetrics and gynecology [1–6]. In particular, the microbiome of the uterine cavity, specifically the endometrium, an anatomical niche where low-biomass microorganisms can modulate the local immune environment, is of particular interest [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="cit7">7</xref>]. Interest is primarily driven by the influence of the microbiota on embryo implantation and placenta formation, potentially affecting fertility and the development of obstetric complications [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="cit2">2</xref>][<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="cit4">4</xref>][<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="cit8">8</xref>][<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="cit9">9</xref>]. Recent studies showed that in the context of in vitro fertilization (IVF), an endometrial microbiota, which was not dominated by lactobacilli (defined as &lt;90% Lactobacillus spp.), was associated with a significant decrease in implantation, pregnancy, and live birth rates [10–12].</p><p>Sequencing-based bacterial detection methods are currently the cornerstone of microbiome assessment in low-biomass anatomical sites. These metabarcoding methods are based on the amplification and sequencing of the bacterial 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene containing nine hypervariable regions (V1-V9), which allows the differentiation and quantification of different microbial species present in a particular sample [13–15]. A significant limitation in the study of the endometrial microbiome is the currently used methods of sampling for its analysis, which have not received sufficient attention so far. At the same time, these procedures have one common disadvantage, namely, the possibility of contamination of endometrial samples with cervical or vaginal microorganisms, i.e., contamination from anatomical areas with high biomass and density of microorganisms (10⁷ and 10⁵ and higher than in the endometrium), which can completely negate the results of studies [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="cit4">4</xref>][<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="cit10">10</xref>][<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="cit16">16</xref>]. Thus, studies investigating the endometrial microbiome using a transcervical sampling catheter and studies of a histosample of endometrium obtained at hysterectomy and reaching the endometrial cavity showed radically different results both in terms of microbial density and colonizing species [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="cit1">1</xref>][17–20].</p><p>In the present study, the authors proposed to use a proprietary designed two-lumen uterine probe with collet, commonly used for embryo transfer, to obtain endometrial samples and assess the microbiota. This uterine catheter system is expected to reduce possible microbial contamination of the cervix and vagina. To investigate the reliability of this method of sample collection, the authors compared endometrial and vaginal microbiota in infertile women scheduled for IVF and frozen embryo transfer. As a secondary objective, the authors also assessed the association of the resulting microbiota with subsequent pregnancy probability.</p><p>The aim of the study was to evaluate the microbiome of the vagina and uterine cavity using a collet-guided uterine catheter in infertile patients before IVF.</p></sec><sec><title>Materials and Methods</title><p>The study included 73 women (mean age – 34.1±3.7 years) with infertility before preparation for the IVF cycle or intracytoplasmic sperm injection, having blastocysts for cryotransfer in 5 fertility centers of Krasnodar (Clinic of Kuban State Medical University (KubGMU), Family Planning Center of the Regional Perinatal Center of the Children’s Regional Clinical Hospital (CRCH), Fertility Center of the clinic “Ekaterininskaya”, Male and Female Health Clinic “OXY-center”, Fertility Clinic “Embrio”) in the period from January 2021 to January 2023 (Table 1).</p><table-wrap id="table-1"><caption><p>Table 1</p><p>Initial characteristics of patients</p></caption><table><tbody><tr><td>Data</td><td>n=73</td><td>IQR; %</td></tr><tr><td>Age (years)</td><td>34.1</td><td>27–38</td></tr><tr><td>BMI (kg/m²)</td><td>26.3</td><td>19.9–28.2</td></tr><tr><td>Smoking</td><td>17</td><td>23.3</td></tr><tr><td>AMG (ng/ml)</td><td>2.34</td><td>2.23–3.65</td></tr><tr><td>Previous pregnancy</td><td>55</td><td>75.3</td></tr><tr><td>Previous live births</td><td>32</td><td>43.8</td></tr><tr><td>Duration of infertility (years)</td><td>3</td><td>2–7</td></tr><tr><td>Cause of infertility</td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>Male factor</td><td>9</td><td>12.3</td></tr><tr><td>Pipe factor</td><td>7</td><td>9.6</td></tr><tr><td>Endometriosis</td><td>11</td><td>15.1</td></tr><tr><td>Idiopathic infertility</td><td>37</td><td>50.7</td></tr><tr><td>Mixed</td><td>9</td><td>12.3</td></tr><tr><td>Number of IVF attempts</td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>5</td><td>6.8</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>11</td><td>15.1</td></tr><tr><td> ≥3</td><td>57</td><td>78.1</td></tr><tr><td>Preparation of the endometrium for transfer</td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td>HRT</td><td>21</td><td>28.8</td></tr><tr><td>Natural cycle</td><td>52</td><td>71.2</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Exclusion criteria: 1) current diagnosis of pelvic inflammatory disease; 2) presence of hydrosalpinx; 3) clinically significant endometrial cavity abnormalities including fibroids, endometrial polyps and uterine septum, Asherman’s syndrome; 4) antibiotic therapy within the last month; 5) hormonal therapy (progestins, estroprogestins, or gonadotropins) within the last month; 6) abnormal uterine bleeding; 7) embryo transfer scheduled in the same menstrual cycle. Women who agreed to participate were informed about the aim of the study, possible discomfort of the procedure, and possible risks, and signed informed consent.</p><p>Samples from the uterine cavity for microbiologic examination were taken from women in the lithotomic position on a gynecologic chair with inspection in speculum (Cusco type) between days 15 and 25 of the natural menstrual cycle. Sampling was performed with transabdominal ultrasound imaging. First, a sample of vaginal microflora was taken from the posterior vaginal vault (sterile swab). Then, after the removal of cervical mucus with a sterile swab, avoiding contact with the vaginal walls and non-sterile surfaces as much as possible, a uterine two-lumen collet probe was inserted, and endometrial material was sampled. After that, the collet was closed, and the probe was removed (Fig. 1).</p><fig id="fig-1"><caption><p>Fig. 1. Uterine two-lumen collet probe for endometrial samplingNote: the outer hollow catheter (represented in gray) is combined with the distal cervical canal, then, after the opening of the collet, an internal probe with a smaller diameter (represented in blue) passes through the first and collects the scraping of the endometrium, avoiding contact with the mucous membranes of the vagina and cervix (priority reference for invention No. 2022127503/14 (060304) of October 21, 2022).</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="mvjr-14-3-g001.jpeg"><uri content-type="original_file">https://cdn.elpub.ru/assets/journals/mvjr/2023/4/686qkeXYDlEztVXo3LLTXhS294cOB6Ok23fsMLYg.jpeg</uri></graphic></fig><p>The contents of the probe were suspended in 150 μL of sterile saline solution previously prepared in a 1 mL sterile Eppendorf tube. Then, the distal part of the catheter (2–3 mm) was broken off and lowered inside the tube along with the saline solution (the tube was stored at ‑80 °C).</p><p>At the time of evaluation, samples from the vagina and uterine cavity were thawed, and bacterial DNA was isolated for its examination by real-time PCR (RT-PCR) using the Femoflor-16 reagent kit (NPO DNA-Technology, LLC, Russia): DNA was isolated from 100 μl of the sample using the reagent kit “Proba-GS”. This test allows for the simultaneous amplification and detection of target nucleic acids of microflora associated with bacterial vaginosis: Gardnerella vaginalis, Atopobium vaginae, Megasphaera, Mobiluncus spp., Bacteroides fragilis, as well as Lactobacillus spp. (L. crispatus, L. gasseri, L. jensenii). The assay provides automatic interpretation of the microflora using quantitative analysis.</p><p>Sequencing of 16S rRNA of bacterial genes was performed using the Microbiota B solution kit for hypervariable regions V3-V4-V6 by using degenerate primers including 2 assays: EMMA® (Endometrial Microbiome Metagenomic Analysis – analysis of endometrial microflora to assess reproductive prognosis) and ALICE® (Analysis of Infectious Chronic Endometritis – analysis of pathogenic endometrial microflora (Igenomix, Spain)) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="cit14">14</xref>][<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="cit15">15</xref>]. The resulting amplification of hypervariable regions V3-V4-V6 allows for the identification of most of the bacterial populations present in the microbiota. Sequencing data were analyzed automatically using the MicrobAT software (Microbiota analysis Tool, Igenomix, Spain), which provides a report for each sample with the assignment of operational taxonomic units.</p><p>The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences software (SPSS 23.0, IL, USA). The data were presented as number (%), mean ± SD or median (interquartile range – IQR). Comparisons were performed using Student’s T-test and Fisher’s nonparametric test (p&lt;0.05 values were considered statistically significant). The relative proportion of different bacterial genera was calculated using only the total number of informative reads as the denominator. The endometrial microbiome was considered lactobacillus-dominant if the relative proportion of Lactobacillus was greater than 90%. The Shannon index (SH) and Shannon equivalence index were calculated by the MicrobAT software.</p><p>The study was approved by the Ethical Committee of KubSMU (protocol No. 17 dated January 12, 2021) and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (revision 2013, Brazil), the rules of Good Clinical Practice (GCP; 2016, Astana) and clinical practice in the Russian Federation (Decree of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation No. 200n, 2016). Patients were examined according to the Decrees of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation No. 1130n dated October 20, 2020 “Approval of the procedure for medical care in obstetrics and gynecology”, No. 803n dated July 31, 2020 “The procedure for the use of assisted reproductive technologies, contraindications and restrictions to their use”, and clinical recommendations “Female infertility” (2021).</p></sec><sec><title>Results</title><p>The interquartile range (IQR), the total number of sequence readings for endometrial and vaginal specimens, was 2583 (385–6083) and 3822 (910–6920), respectively. The Shannon IQR indices for them were 2.73 (2.49–3.17) and 1.70 (1.44–2.22) (p&lt;0.001), the Shannon Equitability IQR indices were 0.57 (0.52–0.74) and 0.44 (0.40–0.53) (p&lt;0.001). Lactobacillary microflora predominance was noted in 30.1% (22/73) of endometrial and 53.4% (39/73) of vaginal samples; 86.3% (19/22) of women who had Lactobacillus spp. as the most common species in endometrial samples also had Lactobacillus as the most common species in vaginal samples. Microflora that could be classified as Lactobacillus-dominantus (Lactobacillus &gt;90%) was found in 8.2% (6/73) of endometrial and 41.1% (30/73) of vaginal samples (the Spearman correlation index between the proportion of Lactobacillus spp. in endometrial and vaginal samples was Rho=0.53, p&lt;0.001 – weak correlation) (Table 2).</p><table-wrap id="table-2"><caption><p>Table 2</p><p>The most common types of bacteria in the endometrial and vaginal microbiota</p></caption><table><tbody><tr><td>Place</td><td>Species</td><td>Prevalence &gt;1%</td><td>Prevalence 
(%; CI)</td><td>Most prevalent species</td><td>Dominant species
(&gt;90%)</td></tr><tr><td>endometrium</td><td>Lactobacillus</td><td>61 (83.6%)</td><td>13 (3–37)</td><td>22 (30.1%)</td><td>6 (8.2%)</td></tr><tr><td>Propionibacterium</td><td>54 (74.0%)</td><td>7 (4–14)</td><td>3 (4.1%)</td><td>0 (0.0%)</td></tr><tr><td>Pelomonas</td><td>51 (69.9%)</td><td>6 (2–9)</td><td>6 (8.2%)</td><td>0 (0.0%)</td></tr><tr><td>Pseudomonas</td><td>46 (63.0%)</td><td>8 (2–14)</td><td>4 (5.5%)</td><td>0 (0.0%)</td></tr><tr><td>Streptococcus</td><td>38 (52.0%)</td><td>2 (1–3)</td><td>2 (2.7%)</td><td>0 (0.0%)</td></tr><tr><td>Escherichia coli</td><td>37 (50.7%)</td><td>4 (1–11)</td><td>6 (8.2%)</td><td>3 (4.1%)</td></tr><tr><td>vagina</td><td>Lactobacillus</td><td>68 (93.1%)</td><td>83 (27–99)</td><td>39 (53.4%)</td><td>30 (41.1%)</td></tr><tr><td>Gardnerella</td><td>23 (31.5%)</td><td>31 (15–62)</td><td>11 (15.1%)</td><td>4 (5.5%)</td></tr><tr><td>Bifidobacterium</td><td>17 (23.3%)</td><td>50 (8–87)</td><td>9 (12.3%)</td><td>5 (6.8%)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>The dominant bacterial genera of the endometrial and vaginal microbiota coincided in only 9.6% (7/73) of women. For the endometrium, the most common bacterial genera were Lactobacillus, Pelomonas, Propionibacterium, Pseudomonas, Streptococcus, and Escherichia coli (Tables 2–3). For the vagina, these were Lactobacillus, Gardnerella, and Bifidobacterium.</p><table-wrap id="table-3"><caption><p>Table 3</p><p>Comparative results of the endometrial microbiota</p></caption><table><tbody><tr><td>Patient
No.</td><td>PCR-RT (femoflor-16®)</td><td>rRNA 16s (EMMA®; ALICE®)</td></tr><tr><td>Negative outcome of IVF</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td><td>Lactobacillus spp. Enterococcus spp.</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., E. coli</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., E. coli</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Mycoplasma hominis</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Streptococcus spp.</td><td>E. coli, Bifidobacterium, Prevotella</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Candida albicans</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Staphylococcus</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Propionibacterium</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Enterococcus spp.</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>negative</td><td>Streptococcus, Pelomonas</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td><td>Streptococcus</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Propionibacterium</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>Streptococcus spp.</td><td>Megasphaera</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>Candida albicans</td><td>Enterococcus spp., Streptococcus</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Staphylococcus spp.</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>negative</td><td>Bifidobacterium</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., E. coli, Pelomonas</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., E. coli, Staphylococcus</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>negative</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Pelomonas</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td><td>negative</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Enterococcus spp.</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Megasphaera</td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>E. coli, Enterococcus spp., Ureaplasma</td><td>Bifidobacterium</td></tr><tr><td>22</td><td>negative</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., E. coli</td><td>Klebsiella</td></tr><tr><td>24</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td></tr><tr><td>25</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td><td>Megasphaera</td></tr><tr><td>26</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Propionibacterium</td></tr><tr><td>27</td><td>Staph. spp., Candida albicans</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Staphylococcus</td></tr><tr><td>28</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td></tr><tr><td>29</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Staph. spp.</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td></tr><tr><td>30</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Bifidobacterium</td></tr><tr><td>31</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Enterobacteriaceae</td><td>Propionibacterium</td></tr><tr><td>32</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td><td>negative</td></tr><tr><td>33</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., C. albicans</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Bifidobacterium</td></tr><tr><td>34</td><td>negative</td><td>Prevotella</td></tr><tr><td>35</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td></tr><tr><td>36</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td></tr><tr><td>37</td><td>G. vaginalis, Pelomonas</td><td>Propionibacterium, Pelomonas</td></tr><tr><td>38</td><td>negative</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Prevotella</td></tr><tr><td>39</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td><td>Veillonella</td></tr><tr><td>40</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td></tr><tr><td>41</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., E. coli</td><td>negative</td></tr><tr><td>42</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td></tr><tr><td>43</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Enterobacteriaceae</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Enterococcus spp.</td></tr><tr><td>44</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Propionibacterium</td></tr><tr><td>45</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Pelomonas</td><td>Megasphaera</td></tr><tr><td>46</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td></tr><tr><td>47</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Ureaplasma</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td></tr><tr><td>48</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td><td>negative</td></tr><tr><td>49</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., E. coli</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Veillonella</td></tr><tr><td>50</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td></tr><tr><td> </td><td>Positive outcome of IVF (clinical pregnancy)</td></tr><tr><td>51</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Strept. spp.</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Streptococcus</td></tr><tr><td>52</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Pelomonas</td><td>Staphylococcus</td></tr><tr><td>53</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Propionibacterium</td></tr><tr><td>54</td><td>Streptococcus spp., Pelomonas</td><td>Streptococcus, Megasphaera</td></tr><tr><td>55</td><td>Enterococcus spp., Candida albicans</td><td>Enterococcus spp., Streptococcus</td></tr><tr><td>56</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Staphylococcus spp</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td></tr><tr><td>57</td><td>Enterococcus spp., Ureaplasma</td><td>Enterococcus spp., Bifidobacterium</td></tr><tr><td>58</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., E. coli, Staph. spp.</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Staphylococcus</td></tr><tr><td>59</td><td>Ureaplasma, Candida albicans</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Prevotella</td></tr><tr><td>60</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td></tr><tr><td>61</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Enterococcus spp.</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Megasphaera</td></tr><tr><td>62</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td><td>Pelomonas</td></tr><tr><td>63</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td></tr><tr><td>64</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Pelomonas</td><td>Bifidobacterium</td></tr><tr><td>65</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td></tr><tr><td>66</td><td>E. coli, Pelomonas</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Pelomonas</td></tr><tr><td>67</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td></tr><tr><td>68</td><td>Staph. spp., Candida albicans</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Staphylococcus</td></tr><tr><td>69</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td></tr><tr><td>70</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Staph. spp.</td><td>negative</td></tr><tr><td>71</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Bifidobacterium</td></tr><tr><td>72</td><td>Lactobacillus spp., Enterobacteriaceae</td><td>Propionibacterium</td></tr><tr><td>73</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td><td>Lactobacillus spp.</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>At the same time, the data of multiplex RT-PCR in endometrial samples did not significantly coincide with the results of 16srRNA sequencing, which seems logical, since the PCR detection system is primarily aimed at detecting the microflora responsible for the development of bacterial vaginosis and is not tropic to the endometrium (Table 3).</p></sec><sec><title>Results</title><p>Further, 89.0% (65/73) of the patients underwent the transfer of unfrozen embryos of 3–5 days (in 8 women, the transfer was canceled because the optimal endometrial thickness was not reached). Only clinical pregnancy (visualization of cardiac activity at week 6) was registered, which was observed in 31.5% (23/73) of women. Live birth was registered in 24.7% (18/73) of patients (5.5% (4/73) had spontaneous miscarriage, 6.8% (5/73) had preterm delivery (22–36 weeks of gestation), and the remaining 19.2% (14/73) delivered at term).</p><p>Out of 23 women with successful IVF outcome (parameter – registered clinical pregnancy), the predominance of lactobacillary microflora in endometrial and vaginal samples was noted in 11 patients (47.8%) – 2 (8.7%) in endometrium and 9 (39.1%) in the vagina (p=0.16). No significant differences were noted between IVF positive and negative groups: Shannon’s index for endometrial samples between pregnant and non-pregnant women was 2.41 (1.12–3.90) and 3.29 (2.84–3.82) (p=0.036) respectively, Shannon’s equitability index was 0.76 (0.57–0.87) and 0.55 (0.51–0.64) (p=0.002), which may indicate higher biodiversity in relation to the establishment of pregnancy, but, given the sampling size, is not significant (Figs. 1–2).</p><fig id="fig-2"><caption><p>Fig. 2. Shannon index in endometrial samples</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="mvjr-14-3-g002.jpeg"><uri content-type="original_file">https://cdn.elpub.ru/assets/journals/mvjr/2023/4/qTi9v87jVVLtBZ0M34Cg8HlaQTDVhm6GFINrkWlp.jpeg</uri></graphic></fig><fig id="fig-3"><caption><p>Fig. 3. Shannon index in vaginal samples</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="mvjr-14-3-g003.jpeg"><uri content-type="original_file">https://cdn.elpub.ru/assets/journals/mvjr/2023/4/kjsC5MaD3rmWvh71oL9NubKTiUhY2IS3ROljOf6x.jpeg</uri></graphic></fig><p>A statistically significant difference was found for both indices in endometrial microbiomes (p=0.036 and p=0.002, respectively), and conversely, no significant differences were observed for vaginal microbiomes.</p></sec><sec><title>Discussion</title><p>The results of this study in the non-pregnant women that were obtained using the author’s method of obtaining endometrial samples revealed significant differences in the taxonomy between the composition of the endometrium and the vaginal microbiome, which confirms its validity. At the same time, no confirmation was obtained about the expressed positive influence of the dominance of lactobacillary endometrial microflora on IVF success, nor about the negative influence of opportunistic flora responsible for the development of local genital dysbiosis. Interestingly, higher Shannon indices were observed among women with a positive embryo transfer outcome (clinical pregnancy).</p><p>The vagina and cervix are areas with a high biomass content, which in most cases causes significant contamination of biomaterial during their passage (the concentration of microorganisms in the cervix is estimated to be 10⁵ higher than in the endometrium), which is a significant limitation in the assessment of endometrial microbiocenosis, which determines the relevance of the search for new methods of transcervical collection of biomaterial [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="cit10">10</xref>]. At the same time, the assessment of endometrial and vaginal microbiome composition in this study and, what is especially important, the assessment of its influence on the effectiveness of IVF programs, differs in many respects from the data of other researchers [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="cit1">1</xref>]. Both the authors of this study and most other authors do not question the similarity between the vaginal and endometrial microbiocenosis due to their interdependence and proximity. Still, in the authors’ opinion, the observation of differences is an argument in favor of the accuracy of our sampling technique.</p><p>There were attempts to overcome the contamination of endometrial specimens with cervicovaginal contents in clinical practice. Liu et al. (2019) used a double-sheath catheter to obtain an endometrial sample [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="cit21">21</xref>]. Their recorded results of more expressed endometrial contamination compared to Lactobacillus vaginal samples are inconsistent. Meanwhile, other researchers (Carosso et al., 2020) who used two-lumen catheters for embryo transfer, showed an average occurrence rate of Lactobacillus (27%), which correlates with the results of most studies [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="cit22">22</xref>]. Thus, Verstraelen et al. (2016) used a transcervical device with a sheathed silicone brush designed to collect endometrial histosamples and failed to show Lactobacillus dominance in the endometrial microbiome, with a rather “rough” impact of this cytobrush being reported to disrupt the integrity of the endometrium [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="cit23">23</xref>]. Qiu et al. (2021), who performed hysteroscopic sampling to avoid contamination, reported an even lower Lactobacillus detection rate of 7% (a significant disadvantage of this method is its complexity and invasiveness) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="cit24">24</xref>]. Thus, the use of two-lumen catheters for embryo transfer has been the most successful so far [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="cit25">25</xref>][<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="cit26">26</xref>]. However, with this method, there is still a risk of contamination when the internal catheter passes through the external catheter. The model used in the present study, by opening/closing the collet mechanism, helped to overcome this risk.</p><p>The authors of this study also attempted to draw parallels between the endometrial microbiome composition and IVF outcome, but the obtained results had some contrast with other studies [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="cit12">12</xref>]. It is important to mention that the occurrence rate of lactobacillus-dominant cases in the patients was scarce, and there was a lack of association between the composition of the endometrial microbiota and IVF outcomes. That said, the results of this study do not question the findings of Moreno et al. (2016) on the association of lactoflora dominance and positive outcome, but question the fact that these authors actually had data on the endometrial microbiome (it is more plausible that their conclusions were based on the evaluation of the cervical microflora). An interesting and unexpected result of the present study is the association between higher alpha diversity and pregnancy probability in IVF protocols: 2 measures of diversity (Shannon and equitability indices) revealed statistically significant differences between women with positive and negative embryo transfer outcomes. At the same time, the authors believe that it is necessary to conduct further studies to assess the biodiversity of the endometrial microbiota and its role in the realization of fertility potential.</p><p>Finally, the data obtained with multiplex RT-PCR (Femoflor 16) indicate that this method is not completely suitable for the analysis of endometrial samples, but it is able to confirm differences between vaginal and endometrial colonizing microorganisms.</p></sec><sec><title>Conclusion</title><p>The obtained data confirmed the efficacy of using two-lumen probes with collet to test the endometrial microbiome, which creates new perspectives for both studying its biodiversity and determining its role in endometrial receptivity and female fertility.</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="cit1"><label>1</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Базанов П.А., Кузнецова И.А., Павлухина С.С., Горская О.С., Митюшина Н.Г. Эффективность программ вспомогательных репродуктивных технологий у пациенток с хроническим эндометритом после лечения путем нормализации локальной экспрессии факторов врожденного иммунитета. Проблемы репродукции. 2020;26(5):8690. https://doi.org/10.17116/repro20202605186</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Bazanov P.A., Kuznetsova I.A., Pavlukhina S.S., Gorskaya O.S., Mityushina N.G. The effectiveness of ART programs in patients with chronic endometritis after treatment by normalizing the local expression of innate immunity factors. Russian Journal of Human Reproduction. 2020;26(5):8690. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17116/repro20202605186</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit2"><label>2</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Benner M, Ferwerda G, Joosten I, van der Molen RG. How uterine microbiota might be responsible for a receptive, fertile endometrium. Hum Reprod Update. 2018;24(4):393-415. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmy012</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Benner M, Ferwerda G, Joosten I, van der Molen RG. How uterine microbiota might be responsible for a receptive, fertile endometrium. Hum Reprod Update. 2018;24(4):393-415. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmy012</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit3"><label>3</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Agostinis C, Mangogna A, Bossi F, Ricci G, Kishore U, Bulla R. Uterine Immunity and Microbiota: A Shifting Paradigm. Front Immunol. 2019;10:2387. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2019.02387</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Agostinis C, Mangogna A, Bossi F, Ricci G, Kishore U, Bulla R. Uterine Immunity and Microbiota: A Shifting Paradigm. Front Immunol. 2019;10:2387. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2019.02387</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit4"><label>4</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Глухова Е.В., Шаховская И.Н. Микробиологическая характеристика биотопов репродуктивного тракта при эндометрите. Тольяттинский медицинский консилиум. 2021;1(2):38-44. eLIBRARY ID: 20808469</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Glukhova E.V., Shakhovskaya I.N. Microbiological characteristics of biotopes of the reproductive tract in endometritis. Togliatti Medical Council. 2021;1(2):38-44. (In Russ.) eLIBRARY ID: 20808469</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit5"><label>5</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Hashimoto T, Kyono K. Does dysbiotic endometrium affect blastocyst implantation in IVF patients? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36(12):2471-2479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01630-7</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Hashimoto T, Kyono K. Does dysbiotic endometrium affect blastocyst implantation in IVF patients? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36(12):2471-2479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01630-7</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit6"><label>6</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Булгакова В.П., Боровиков И.О. Применение препаратов микронизированного натурального прогестерона при подготовке к проведению вспомогательных репродуктивных технологий у пациенток с маточным фактором бесплодия. Проблемы репродукции. 2018;24(6):6775. https://doi.org/10.17116/repro20182406167</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Bulgakova V.P., Borovikov I.O. Use of micronized natural progesterone as preparation for assisted reproductive technologies in patients with uterine infertility factor. Russian Journal of Human Reproduction. 2018;24(6):6775. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17116/repro20182406167</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit7"><label>7</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">O'Callaghan JL, Turner R, Dekker Nitert M, Barrett HL, Clifton V, Pelzer ES. Re-assessing microbiomes in the low-biomass reproductive niche. BJOG. 2020;127(2):147-158. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15974</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">O'Callaghan JL, Turner R, Dekker Nitert M, Barrett HL, Clifton V, Pelzer ES. Re-assessing microbiomes in the low-biomass reproductive niche. BJOG. 2020;127(2):147-158. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15974</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit8"><label>8</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Altmäe S, Rienzi L. Endometrial microbiome: new hope, or hype? Reprod Biomed Online. 2021;42(6):1051-1052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.05.001</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Altmäe S, Rienzi L. Endometrial microbiome: new hope, or hype? Reprod Biomed Online. 2021;42(6):1051-1052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.05.001</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit9"><label>9</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Molina NM, Sola-Leyva A, Haahr T, Aghajanova L, Laudanski P, et al. Analysing endometrial microbiome: methodological considerations and recommendations for good practice. Hum Reprod. 2021;36(4):859-879. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deab009</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Molina NM, Sola-Leyva A, Haahr T, Aghajanova L, Laudanski P, et al. Analysing endometrial microbiome: methodological considerations and recommendations for good practice. Hum Reprod. 2021;36(4):859-879. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deab009</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit10"><label>10</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Кисель Е.И. Современные возможности оценки состояния эндометрия при хроническом эндометрите (обзор литературы). Международный журнал прикладных и фундаментальных исследований. 2016;(4):698-702. eLIBRARY ID: 25779224</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Kisel E.I. The modern possibilities for assessment of the status of endometrium in chronic endometritis (literature review). International Journal of Applied and Fundamental Research. 2016;(4):698-702. (In Russ.) eLIBRARY ID: 25779224</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit11"><label>11</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Al-Nasiry S, Ambrosino E, Schlaepfer M, Morré SA, Wieten L, et al. The Interplay Between Reproductive Tract Microbiota and Immunological System in Human Reproduction. Front Immunol. 2020;11:378. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2020.00378</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Al-Nasiry S, Ambrosino E, Schlaepfer M, Morré SA, Wieten L, et al. The Interplay Between Reproductive Tract Microbiota and Immunological System in Human Reproduction. Front Immunol. 2020;11:378. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2020.00378</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit12"><label>12</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Moreno I, Codoñer FM, Vilella F, Valbuena D, Martinez-Blanch JF, et al. Evidence that the endometrial microbiota has an effect on implantation success or failure. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(6):684-703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.09.075</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Moreno I, Codoñer FM, Vilella F, Valbuena D, Martinez-Blanch JF, et al. Evidence that the endometrial microbiota has an effect on implantation success or failure. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(6):684-703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.09.075</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit13"><label>13</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Chakravorty S, Helb D, Burday M, Connell N, Alland D. A detailed analysis of 16S ribosomal RNA gene segments for the diagnosis of pathogenic bacteria. J Microbiol Methods. 2007;69(2):330-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2007.02.005</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Chakravorty S, Helb D, Burday M, Connell N, Alland D. A detailed analysis of 16S ribosomal RNA gene segments for the diagnosis of pathogenic bacteria. J Microbiol Methods. 2007;69(2):330-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2007.02.005</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit14"><label>14</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Chen C, Song X, Wei W, Zhong H, Dai J, et al. The microbiota continuum along the female reproductive tract and its relation to uterine-related diseases. Nat Commun. 2017;8(1):875. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-00901-0</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Chen C, Song X, Wei W, Zhong H, Dai J, et al. The microbiota continuum along the female reproductive tract and its relation to uterine-related diseases. Nat Commun. 2017;8(1):875. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-00901-0</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit15"><label>15</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Munro MG, Critchley HO, Broder MS, Fraser IS; FIGO Working Group on Menstrual Disorders. FIGO classification system (PALM-COEIN) for causes of abnormal uterine bleeding in nongravid women of reproductive age. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011;113(1):3-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2010.11.011</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Munro MG, Critchley HO, Broder MS, Fraser IS; FIGO Working Group on Menstrual Disorders. FIGO classification system (PALM-COEIN) for causes of abnormal uterine bleeding in nongravid women of reproductive age. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011;113(1):3-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2010.11.011</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit16"><label>16</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Блесманович А.Е., Алехина А.Г., Петров Ю.А. Хронический эндометрит и репродуктивное здоровье женщины. Главный врач Юга России. 2019;2(66):46–51. eLIBRARY ID: 38525134</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Blesmanovich A.E., Alyokhina A.G., Petrov Yu.A. Chronic endometritis and reproductive health of woman. Chief Physician of the South of Russia. 2019;2(66):46–51. (In Russ.) eLIBRARY ID: 38525134</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit17"><label>17</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Cardellicchio L, Reschini M, Paffoni A, Guarneri C, Restelli L, et al. Frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer in natural cycle: feasibility in everyday clinical practice. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;295(6):1509-1514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4383-z</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Cardellicchio L, Reschini M, Paffoni A, Guarneri C, Restelli L, et al. Frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer in natural cycle: feasibility in everyday clinical practice. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;295(6):1509-1514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4383-z</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit18"><label>18</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Benaglia L, Busnelli A, Biancardi R, Vegetti W, Reschini M, et al. Oocyte retrieval difficulties in women with ovarian endometriomas. Reprod Biomed Online. 2018;37(1):77-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.03.020</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Benaglia L, Busnelli A, Biancardi R, Vegetti W, Reschini M, et al. Oocyte retrieval difficulties in women with ovarian endometriomas. Reprod Biomed Online. 2018;37(1):77-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.03.020</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit19"><label>19</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Heravi FS, Zakrzewski M, Vickery K, Hu H. Host DNA depletion efficiency of microbiome DNA enrichment methods in infected tissue samples. J Microbiol Methods. 2020;170:105856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2020.105856</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Heravi FS, Zakrzewski M, Vickery K, Hu H. Host DNA depletion efficiency of microbiome DNA enrichment methods in infected tissue samples. J Microbiol Methods. 2020;170:105856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2020.105856</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit20"><label>20</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Маринкин И.О., Трунченко Н.В., Волчек А.В., Агеева Т.А., Никитенко Е.В. и др. Маркеры воспаления в нормальном и тонком эндометрии при хроническом эндометрите. Акушерство и гинекология. 2018;2:65-73. https://doi.org/10.18565/aig.2018.2.65-73</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Marinkin I.O., Trunchenko N.V., Volchek A.V., Ageeva T.A., Nikitenko E.V., et al. Inflammatory markers in the normal and thin endometrium in chronic endometritis. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2018;2:65-73. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18565/aig.2018.2.65-73</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit21"><label>21</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Liu Y, Ko EY, Wong KK, Chen X, Cheung WC, et al. Endometrial microbiota in infertile women with and without chronic endometritis as diagnosed using a quantitative and reference range-based method. Fertil Steril. 2019;112(4):707-717.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.05.015</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Liu Y, Ko EY, Wong KK, Chen X, Cheung WC, et al. Endometrial microbiota in infertile women with and without chronic endometritis as diagnosed using a quantitative and reference range-based method. Fertil Steril. 2019;112(4):707-717.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.05.015</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit22"><label>22</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Carosso A, Revelli A, Gennarelli G, Canosa S, Cosma S, et al. Controlled ovarian stimulation and progesterone supplementation affect vaginal and endometrial microbiota in IVF cycles: a pilot study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37(9):2315-2326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-020-01878-4</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Carosso A, Revelli A, Gennarelli G, Canosa S, Cosma S, et al. Controlled ovarian stimulation and progesterone supplementation affect vaginal and endometrial microbiota in IVF cycles: a pilot study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37(9):2315-2326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-020-01878-4</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit23"><label>23</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Verstraelen H, Vilchez-Vargas R, Desimpel F, Jauregui R, Vankeirsbilck N, et al. Characterisation of the human uterine microbiome in non-pregnant women through deep sequencing of the V1-2 region of the 16S rRNA gene. PeerJ. 2016;4:e1602. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1602</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Verstraelen H, Vilchez-Vargas R, Desimpel F, Jauregui R, Vankeirsbilck N, et al. Characterisation of the human uterine microbiome in non-pregnant women through deep sequencing of the V1-2 region of the 16S rRNA gene. PeerJ. 2016;4:e1602. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1602</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit24"><label>24</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Qiu T, Liu L, Zhou H, Sheng H, He Y, et al. Analysis of endometrial microbiota in intrauterine adhesion by high-throughput sequencing. Ann Transl Med. 2021;9(3):195. Erratum in: Ann Transl Med. 2021;9(14):1216. PMID: 33708822; PMCID: PMC7940878. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-2813.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Qiu T, Liu L, Zhou H, Sheng H, He Y, et al. Analysis of endometrial microbiota in intrauterine adhesion by high-throughput sequencing. Ann Transl Med. 2021;9(3):195. Erratum in: Ann Transl Med. 2021;9(14):1216. PMID: 33708822; PMCID: PMC7940878. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-2813.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit25"><label>25</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Franasiak JM, Werner MD, Juneau CR, Tao X, Landis J, Zhan Y, et al. Endometrial microbiome at the time of embryo transfer: next-generation sequencing of the 16S ribosomal subunit. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33(1):129-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-015-0614-z</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Franasiak JM, Werner MD, Juneau CR, Tao X, Landis J, Zhan Y, et al. Endometrial microbiome at the time of embryo transfer: next-generation sequencing of the 16S ribosomal subunit. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33(1):129-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-015-0614-z</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit26"><label>26</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Tao X, Franasiak JM, Zhan Y, Scott III RR, Rajchel J, et al. Characterizing the endometrial microbiome by analyzing the ultra-low bacteria from embryo transfer catheter tips in IVF cycles: Next generation sequencing (NGS) analysis of the 16S ribosomal gene. Human Microbiome Journal. 2017;3:15-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humic.2017.01.004</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Tao X, Franasiak JM, Zhan Y, Scott III RR, Rajchel J, et al. Characterizing the endometrial microbiome by analyzing the ultra-low bacteria from embryo transfer catheter tips in IVF cycles: Next generation sequencing (NGS) analysis of the 16S ribosomal gene. Human Microbiome Journal. 2017;3:15-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humic.2017.01.004</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref></ref-list><fn-group><fn fn-type="conflict"><p>The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.</p></fn></fn-group></back></article>
