Multiple Prevotella species are implicated in Bacterial Vaginosis: evidence from a broad-range PNA probe


Abstract

Background. Bacterial vaginosis (BV) is the most prevalent vaginal infection among reproductive-age women, with adverse pregnancy complications and an increased risk of HIV and sexually transmitted infection acquisition. BV is characterized by an imbalance in the vaginal microbiota, namely a decrease of Lactobacillus species and an overgrowth of anaerobic bacteria, leading to the development of a polymicrobial biofilm. Despite extensive research, the etiology of BV remains unclear, and its pathophysiology is not fully understood. It has been hypothesized that P. bivia, in combination with Gardnerella spp, plays an important role in the early development of the BV biofilm. We previously developed a peptide nucleic acid (PNA) probe specifically targeting P. bivia to investigate its role as a potential early colonizer. However, our recent findings have raised doubts about the specificity of this association, suggesting a broader involvement of other Prevotella species in incident BV (iBV).
Methods. A new PNA probe targeting Prevotella spp. 23S rRNA was developed compared to the existing P. bivia‑specific probe. This new probe was optimized in vitro through a variation of hybridization temperatures and times, and its performance was evaluated using a collection of 28 Prevotella strains representing 24 different species, and 37 non-Prevotella spp. typically found in BV, in order to assess sensitivity and specificity. Both probes were tested on vaginal swab specimens from women with and without BV to assess the bacterial count and detection of Prevotella species in iBV.
Results. In vitro validation demonstrated that the new Prevotella spp. probe achieved a specificity of 94% and sensitivity of 92%. As expected, its broader detection allowed identification of a wider range of Prevotella spp. compared to the P. bivia-specific probe, which was intentionally restricted to a single species. Application to clinical specimens revealed that the new probe identified a significantly higher count of Prevotella spp. in 6/9 (66.6%) BV-positive specimens compared to the P. bivia-specific probe. In 2/9 (22.2%) healthy control specimens, greater Prevotella spp. detection was also observed.
Conclusions. Our findings suggest that the involvement of Prevotella in BV extends beyond P. bivia, implicating a wider range of species which could be present in the BV polymicrobial biofilm. The broader specificity of the new Prevotella probe provides a valuable tool for future research on the vaginal microbiome.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].