Breaking new ground: the role of molecular methods in detection of bacterial vaginosis

Abstract

Bacterial vaginosis is one of the most common disturbances of the vaginal microbiota in women of reproductive age and is associated with an imbalance between lactobacilli and opportunistic microorganisms. Traditional diagnostic approaches based on clinical symptoms and laboratory methods—primarily microscopy or culture—are often insufficient in terms of sensitivity and specificity for detecting this condition, which may lead to diagnostic errors. In recent years, molecular methods, including polymerase chain reaction and metagenomic analysis, have become valuable tools for more accurate diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis in obstetric and gynecological practice. These technologies not only enable identification of pathogenic microorganisms but also allow for quantification of their relative abundance, thus significantly improving diagnostic accuracy. This article reviews current molecular approaches for the detection of bacterial vaginosis, their advantages and limitations, and their application in clinical settings. Recent studies are analyzed to illustrate how molecular diagnostics can contribute to more precise diagnosis and individualized treatment approach. The prospects for incorporating these technologies into routine clinical practice are also discussed, with the potential to improve women’s health and reduce the recurrences of bacterial vaginosis. Thus, molecular methods represent a significant breakthrough in the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis, opening new opportunities for effective therapy and prevention.

Keywords

bacterial vaginosis / diagnosis / genetic diversity / biofilms

References

[1] Chen X, Lu Y, Chen T, Li R. The female vaginal microbiome in health and bacterial vaginosis. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2021;11:631972. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2021.631972

[2] Ravel J, Gajer P, Abdo Z, et al. Vaginal microbiome of reproductive-age women. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108(Suppl 1): 4680–4687. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1002611107

[3] Witkin SS, Linhares IM. Why do lactobacilli dominate the human vaginal microbiota? BJOG. 2017;124(4):606–611. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.14390

[4] Petrova MI, Lievens E, Malik S, et al. Lactobacillus species as biomarkers and agents that can promote various aspects of vaginal health. Front Physiol. 2015;6:81. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2015.00081

[5] Javed A, Parvaiz F, Manzoor S. Bacterial vaginosis: An insight into the prevalence, alternative treatments regimen and it’s associated resistance patterns. Microb Pathog. 2019;127:21–30. doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2018.11.046

[6] Clinical recommendations: Bacterial vaginosis. 2022–2023–2024 (04.05.2022). Approved by the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. Moscow; 2022. (In Russ.)

[7] Abou Chacra L, Fenollar F, Diop K. Bacterial vaginosis: what do we currently know? Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2022;11:672429. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2021.672429

[8] Muzny CA, Taylor CM, Swords WE, et al. An updated conceptual model on the pathogenesis of bacterial vaginosis. J Infect Dis. 2019;220(9):1399–1405. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiz342

[9] Castro J, Jefferson KK, 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

[10] Priputnevich TV, Muravieva VV, Gordeev AB. The molecular genetic and phenotypic features of synanthropic and pathogenic Gardnerella vaginalis strains. Akusherstvo i Ginekologiya. 2019;(3):10–17. doi: 10.18565/aig.2019.3.10-17 EDN: XSJJNX

[11] Ivakhnishina NM, Ostrovskaya OV, Kozharskaya OV, et al. Intrauterine and postnatal infection agents detected in autopsy material of lost low-weight children. Far Eastern Medical Journal. 2015;(4):44–47. EDN: VBKVXX

[12] Liu L, Oza S, Hogan D, et al. Global, regional, and national causes of under-5 mortality in 2000-15: an updated systematic analysis with implications for the Sustainable Development Goals. Lancet. 2016;388(10063):3027–3035. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31593-8

[13] Schellenberg JJ, Paramel Jayaprakash T, Withana Gamage N, et al. Gardnerella vaginalis subgroups defined by cpn60 sequencing and sialidase activity in isolates from Canada, Belgium and Kenya. PLoS One. 2016;11(1):e0146510. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146510

[14] 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

[15] Bradshaw CS, Tabrizi SN, Fairley CK, et al. The association of Atopobium vaginae and Gardnerella vaginalis with bacterial vaginosis and recurrence after oral metronidazole therapy. J Infect Dis. 2006;194(6):828–836. doi: 10.1086/506621

[16] Swidsinski A, Mendling W, Loening-Baucke V, et al. Adherent biofilms in bacterial vaginosis. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106(5 Pt 1):1013–1023. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000183594.45524.d2

[17] Machado D, Castro J, Palmeira-de-Oliveira A, et al. Bacterial vaginosis biofilms: challenges to current therapies and emerging solutions. Front Microbiol. 2016;6:1528. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.01528

[18] Harwich MD Jr, Alves JM, Buck GA, et al. Drawing the line between commensal and pathogenic Gardnerella vaginalis through genome analysis and virulence studies. BMC Genomics. 2010;11:375. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-11-375

[19] Lasa I, Penadés JR. Bap: a family of surface proteins involved in biofilm formation. Res Microbiol. 2006;157(2):99–107. doi: 10.1016/j.resmic.2005.11.003

[20] Swidsinski A, Doerffel Y, Loening-Baucke V, et al. Gardnerella biofilm involves females and males and is transmitted sexually. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2010;70(4):256–263. doi: 10.1159/000314015

[21] Cornejo OE, Hickey RJ, Suzuki H, Forney LJ. Focusing the diversity of Gardnerella vaginalis through the lens of ecotypes. Evol Appl. 2017;11(3):312–324. doi: 10.1111/eva.12555

[22] Oliver A, LaMere B, Weihe C, et al. Cervicovaginal microbiome composition is associated with metabolic profiles in healthy pregnancy. mBio. 2020;11(4):e01851–e018520. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01851-20

[23] Ferreira CST, da Silva MG, de Pontes LG, 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

[24] Blankenstein T, Lytton SD, Leidl B, et al. Point-of-care (POC) diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis (BV) using VGTest™ ion mobility spectrometry (IMS) in a routine ambulatory care gynecology clinic. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;292(2):355–362. doi: 10.1007/s00404-014-3613-x

[25] Cartwright CP, Lembke BD, Ramachandran K, et al. Development and validation of a semiquantitative, multitarget PCR assay for diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. J. Clin Microbiol. 2012;50(7):2321–2329. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00506-12

[26] Coleman JS, Gaydos CA. Molecular diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis: an update. J Clin Microbiol. 2018;56(9):e00342–e003418. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00342-18

[27] Liu GJ, Wang B, Zhang Y, et al. A tetravalent sialic acid-coated tetraphenylethene luminogen with aggregation-induced emission characteristics: design, synthesis and application for sialidase activity assay, high-throughput screening of sialidase inhibitors and diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. Chem Commun (Camb). 2018;54(76):10691–10694. doi: 10.1039/c8cc06300a

[28] Lamont RF, van den Munckhof EH, Luef BM, et al. Recent advances in cultivation-independent molecular-based techniques for the characterization of vaginal eubiosis and dysbiosis. Fac Rev. 2020;9:21. doi: 10.12703/r/9-21

[29] Shalepo KV, Nazarova VV, Menukhova YuN, et al. Assessment of current methods of laboratory diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. Journal of Obstetrics and Womans Diseases. 2014;63(1):26–29. EDN: SEMVLX

[30] Rumyantseva T, Shipitsyna E, Guschin A, Unemo M. Evaluation and subsequent optimizations of the quantitative AmpliSens Florocenosis/Bacterial vaginosis-FRT multiplex real-time PCR assay for diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. APMIS. 2016;124(12):1099–1108. doi: 10.1111/apm.12608

[31] van den Munckhof EHA, van Sitter RL, Boers KE, et al. Comparison of amsel criteria, nugent score, culture and two CE-IVD marked quantitative real-time PCRs with microbiota analysis for the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2019;38(5):959–966. doi: 10.1007/s10096-019-03538-7

[32] Bostwick GD, Hunt CA, Parker LR, et al. Utility of next-generation sequencing in managing bacterial vaginosis: examples from clinical practice. J Women’s Heal Care. 2016;5:322. doi: 10.4172/2167-0420.1000322

[33] Balashov SV, Mordechai E, Adelson ME, Gygax SE. Identification, quantification and subtyping of Gardnerella vaginalis in noncultured clinical vaginal samples by quantitative PCR. J Med Microbiol. 2014;63(Pt 2):162–75. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.066407-0

[34] Shipitsyna E, Krysanova A, Khayrullina G, et al. Quantitation of all four Gardnerella vaginalis clades detects abnormal vaginal microbiota characteristic of bacterial vaginosis more accurately than putative G. vaginalis sialidase a gene count. Mol Diagn Ther. 2019;23(1):139–147. doi: 10.1007/s40291-019-00382-5

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Eco-Vector