Study on the Characteristics of Intrauterine Microbiota in Infertile Women with Poor Endometrial Receptivity

doi:10.12280/gjfckx.20230442

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective: To analyze the characteristics of intrauterine microbiota in infertile women with poor endometrial receptivity (PER) and identify its biomarkers. Methods: A total of 63 infertile women who visited our gynecology department from July 2021 to May 2022 were selected. According to ultrasound evaluation of endometrial receptivity, 40 cases were assigned to the PER group, while 23 cases with good endometrial receptivity were assigned to the control group. Endometrial tissue samples were collected from two groups of patients for 16S rRNA sequencing, to compare the characteristics and differences of intrauterine microbiota between the two groups. Results: There was no significant difference in the α diversity of intrauterine microbiota between the two groups (P>0.05). However, the individual difference of intrauterine microbiota in PER group was significantly higher than that in control group (P<0.05). The relative abundance of the dominant phylum Proteobacteria in the intrauterine of the PER group was significantly higher than that in the control group (50.52% vs. 19.35%). The dominant genus in both groups was Lactobacillus, but the relative abundance of Lactobacillus in the intrauterine of the PER group was significantly lower than that of the control group (21.76% vs. 45.96%), while the relative abundance of Ralstonia was significantly higher than that in the control group (18.01% vs. 0.48%). The relative abundance of Ralstonia_unclassified in the intrauterine microbiota of the PER group was significantly higher than that in the control group (18.01% vs. 0.48%), while the relative abundance of Lactobacillus_crispatus was significantly lower than that in the control group (3.82% vs. 23.78%). The Biomakers at the phylum, family, and genus levels of the intrauterine microbiota in the PER group are Proteobacteria; Burkholderiaceae, Vibrionaceae, etc; Ralstonia, Vibrio, etc. Conclusions: Infertility women with PER may have dysbiosis of the intrauterine microbiota, with a decrease in the relative abundance of Lactobacillus and an increase in the relative abundance of characteristic pathogenic bacteria such as Burkholderia and Ralstonia possibly related to PER.

Key words: Infertility, female, Endometrium, Embryo implantation, High-throughput nucleotide sequencing, Microbiota, Burkholderiaceae, Lactobacillus, Endometrial receptivity, Intrauterine microbiota

REN Shu-qing, SONG Dian-rong, ZHANG Ji-wen, HUAI Qi-juan, ZHAO Lin, ZHANG Wei. Study on the Characteristics of Intrauterine Microbiota in Infertile Women with Poor Endometrial Receptivity[J]. Journal of International Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2023, 50(6): 704-710.

Figures/Tables 11

References 18

[1]	Qiao J, Wang Y, Li X, et al. A Lancet Commission on 70 years of women′s reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health in China[J]. Lancet, 2021, 397(10293):2497-2536. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32708-2. pmid: 34043953
[2]	杨仁祥, 武泽. 子宫内膜容受性的研究进展[J]. 实用妇产科杂志, 2019, 35(1):19-23.
[3]	谢幸, 孔北华, 段涛. 妇产科学[M]. 9版. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2018.
[4]	谢宛裔, 李蓉. 辅助生殖治疗中子宫内膜容受性评估相关临床指标的研究进展[J]. 中华生殖与避孕杂志, 2021, 41(5):413-418. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn101441-20200226-00086.
[5]	李芷舒, 鲁海鸥, 张宇明, 等. 不孕患者移植当日子宫内膜容受性评估对临床妊娠率影响研究[J]. 中国实用妇科与产科杂志, 2020, 36(3):264-266. doi: 10.19538/j.fk2020030118.
[6]	Kitaya K, Nagai Y, Arai W, et al. Characterization of Microbiota in Endometrial Fluid and Vaginal Secretions in Infertile Women with Repeated Implantation Failure[J]. Mediators Inflamm, 2019, 2019:4893437. doi: 10.1155/2019/4893437.
[7]	Hashimoto T, Kyono K. Does dysbiotic endometrium affect blastocyst implantation in IVF patients?[J]. J Assist Reprod Genet, 2019, 36(12):2471-2479. doi: 10.1007/s10815-019-01630-7.
[8]	Benner M, Ferwerda G, Joosten I, et al. How uterine microbiota might be responsible for a receptive, fertile endometrium[J]. Hum Reprod Update, 2018, 24(4):393-415. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmy012. pmid: 29668899
[9]	Kyono K, Hashimoto T, Kikuchi S, et al. A pilot study and case reports on endometrial microbiota and pregnancy outcome: An analysis using 16S rRNA gene sequencing among IVF patients, and trial therapeutic intervention for dysbiotic endometrium[J]. Reprod Med Biol, 2019, 18(1):72-82. doi: 10.1002/rmb2.12250. pmid: 30655724
[10]	蔺凯丽, 郭洁, 任姝晴, 等. 复发性流产患者生殖道菌群特征的初步研究[J]. 国际生殖健康/计划生育杂志, 2022, 41(3):177-183. doi: 10.12280/gjszjk.20220153.
[11]	程阳, 赵敏. 复发性流产患者阴道菌群特征[J]. 国际生殖健康/计划生育杂志, 2022, 41(3):184-188. doi: 10.12280/gjszjk.20220143.
[12]	Saito S, Nakashima A, Shima T, et al. Th1/Th2/Th17 and regulatory T-cell paradigm in pregnancy[J]. Am J Reprod Immunol, 2010, 63(6):601-610. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0897.2010.00852.x.
[13]	陶址, 廖秦平. 妊娠期阴道微生态变化[J]. 中国实用妇科与产科杂志, 2021, 37(10):992-994. doi: 10.19538/j.fk2021100102.
[14]	Odawara K, Akino R, Sekizawa A, et al. Examination of clinical factors affecting intrauterine microbiota[J]. Reprod Fertil, 2021, 2(1):1-6. doi: 10.1530/RAF-20-0030. pmid: 35128428
[15]	林佳惠. 微生态结合宫腔镜辅助诊断慢性子宫内膜炎[D]. 福州: 福建医科大学, 2020.
[16]	Jacobson JC, Turok DK, Dermish AI, et al. Vaginal microbiome changes with levonorgestrel intrauterine system placement[J]. Contraception, 2014, 90(2):130-135. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2014.04.006. pmid: 24835828
[17]	Nernsai P, Sophonsritsuk A, Lertvikool S, et al. A case report of Tubo-ovarian abscess caused by Burkholderia pseudomallei[J]. BMC Infect Dis, 2018, 18(1):73. doi: 10.1186/s12879-018-2986-z. pmid: 29422033
[18]	Cui L, Wang H, Lin J, et al. Progesterone inhibits inflammatory response in E.coli- or LPS-Stimulated bovine endometrial epithelial cells by NF-κB and MAPK pathways[J]. Dev Comp Immunol, 2020, 105:103568. doi: 10.1016/j.dci.2019.103568.

组别	n	子宫内膜厚度（mm）	子宫内膜分型（A型/B型/C型）	子宫内膜容积（mL）	子宫动脉PI	子宫动脉RI	子宫动脉S/D
PER组	40	5.65±0.37	10/7/23	1.71±0.15	3.02±0.32	0.92±0.18	8.64±0.40
对照组	23	9.70±0.48	17/4/2	3.03±0.28	1.67±0.33	0.66±0.16	6.68±0.49
t或χ²		38.240	16.922	23.450	15.810	5.736	17.210
P		<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

组别	n	子宫内膜厚度（mm）	子宫内膜分型（A型/B型/C型）	子宫内膜容积（mL）	子宫动脉PI	子宫动脉RI	子宫动脉S/D
PER组	40	5.65±0.37	10/7/23	1.71±0.15	3.02±0.32	0.92±0.18	8.64±0.40
对照组	23	9.70±0.48	17/4/2	3.03±0.28	1.67±0.33	0.66±0.16	6.68±0.49
t或χ²		38.240	16.922	23.450	15.810	5.736	17.210
P		<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

组别	n	年龄（岁）	月经周期（d）	BMI （kg/m²）	不孕时间（年）	不孕类型（原发性/继发性）
PER组	40	30.23±3.98	30.18±3.12	22.03±1.70	2.21±0.65	24/16
对照组	23	29.26±4.38	29.61±4.26	21.66±1.37	2.06±0.58	16/7
t或χ²		0.892	0.606	0.892	0.861	0.576
P		0.376	0.547	0.376	0.601	0.448

组别	n	年龄（岁）	月经周期（d）	BMI （kg/m²）	不孕时间（年）	不孕类型（原发性/继发性）
PER组	40	30.23±3.98	30.18±3.12	22.03±1.70	2.21±0.65	24/16
对照组	23	29.26±4.38	29.61±4.26	21.66±1.37	2.06±0.58	16/7
t或χ²		0.892	0.606	0.892	0.861	0.576
P		0.376	0.547	0.376	0.601	0.448

组别	有效序列（条）	Features （个）	门（种）	纲（种）	目（种）	科（种）	属（种）	种（种）
PER组	2 588 185	6 389	33	83	190	328	782	1 122
对照组	1 122 461	2 423	25	58	139	252	585	789