Diana Montoya-Williams1, Dominick J Lemas2, Lisa Spiryda3, Keval Patel2, O'neshia Olivia Carney2, Josef Neu1, Tiffany L Carson4. 1. Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. 2. Department of Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. 4. Division of Preventive Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cesarean sections (CS) are among the most commonly performed surgical procedures in the world. Epidemiologic data has associated delivery by CS with an increased risk of certain adverse health outcomes in children, such as asthma and obesity. OBJECTIVE: To explore what is known about the effect of mode of delivery on the development of the infant microbiome and discuss the potentially mediating role of CS-related microbial dysbiosis in the development of adverse pediatric health outcomes. Recommendations for future inquiry are also provided. METHODS: This study provides a narrative overview of the literature synthesizing the findings of literature retrieved from searches of PubMed and other computerized databases and authoritative texts. RESULTS: Emerging evidence suggests that mode of delivery is involved in the development of the neonatal microbiome and may partially explain pediatric health outcomes associated with birth by CS. Specifically, the gut microbiome of vaginally delivered infants more closely resembles their mothers' vaginal microbiome and thus more commonly consists of potentially beneficial microbiota such as Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, and Bacteroides. Conversely, the microbiome of infants born via CS shows an increased prevalence of either skin flora or potentially pathogenic microbial communities such as Klebsiella, Enterococcus, and Clostridium. CONCLUSIONS: Mode of delivery plays an important role in the development of the postnatal microbiome but likely tells only part of the story. More comprehensive investigations into all the pre- and perinatal factors that have the potential to contribute to the neonatal microbiome are warranted.
BACKGROUND: Cesarean sections (CS) are among the most commonly performed surgical procedures in the world. Epidemiologic data has associated delivery by CS with an increased risk of certain adverse health outcomes in children, such as asthma and obesity. OBJECTIVE: To explore what is known about the effect of mode of delivery on the development of the infant microbiome and discuss the potentially mediating role of CS-related microbial dysbiosis in the development of adverse pediatric health outcomes. Recommendations for future inquiry are also provided. METHODS: This study provides a narrative overview of the literature synthesizing the findings of literature retrieved from searches of PubMed and other computerized databases and authoritative texts. RESULTS: Emerging evidence suggests that mode of delivery is involved in the development of the neonatal microbiome and may partially explain pediatric health outcomes associated with birth by CS. Specifically, the gut microbiome of vaginally delivered infants more closely resembles their mothers' vaginal microbiome and thus more commonly consists of potentially beneficial microbiota such as Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, and Bacteroides. Conversely, the microbiome of infants born via CS shows an increased prevalence of either skin flora or potentially pathogenic microbial communities such as Klebsiella, Enterococcus, and Clostridium. CONCLUSIONS: Mode of delivery plays an important role in the development of the postnatal microbiome but likely tells only part of the story. More comprehensive investigations into all the pre- and perinatal factors that have the potential to contribute to the neonatal microbiome are warranted.
Authors: Anu Huurre; Marko Kalliomäki; Samuli Rautava; Minna Rinne; Seppo Salminen; Erika Isolauri Journal: Neonatology Date: 2007-11-16 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Meghan B Azad; Theodore Konya; Heather Maughan; David S Guttman; Catherine J Field; Radha S Chari; Malcolm R Sears; Allan B Becker; James A Scott; Anita L Kozyrskyj Journal: CMAJ Date: 2013-02-11 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Siddhartha Mandal; Keith M Godfrey; Daniel McDonald; Will V Treuren; Jørgen V Bjørnholt; Tore Midtvedt; Birgitte Moen; Knut Rudi; Rob Knight; Anne Lise Brantsæter; Shyamal D Peddada; Merete Eggesbø Journal: Microbiome Date: 2016-10-19 Impact factor: 14.650
Authors: Sonia Michail; Malinda Lin; Mark R Frey; Rob Fanter; Oleg Paliy; Brian Hilbush; Nicholas V Reo Journal: FEMS Microbiol Ecol Date: 2014-12-05 Impact factor: 4.519
Authors: Tania Maria Brasil Esteves; Regina Paiva Daumas; Maria Inês Couto de Oliveira; Carlos Augusto de Ferreira de Andrade; Iuri Costa Leite Journal: Rev Saude Publica Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 2.106
Authors: Jose U Scher; Andrew Sczesnak; Randy S Longman; Nicola Segata; Carles Ubeda; Craig Bielski; Tim Rostron; Vincenzo Cerundolo; Eric G Pamer; Steven B Abramson; Curtis Huttenhower; Dan R Littman Journal: Elife Date: 2013-11-05 Impact factor: 8.140
Authors: Linda Wampach; Anna Heintz-Buschart; Joëlle V Fritz; Javier Ramiro-Garcia; Janine Habier; Malte Herold; Shaman Narayanasamy; Anne Kaysen; Angela H Hogan; Lutz Bindl; Jean Bottu; Rashi Halder; Conny Sjöqvist; Patrick May; Anders F Andersson; Carine de Beaufort; Paul Wilmes Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2018-11-30 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Dominick J Lemas; Jasmine A Mack; Jennifer J Schoch; Nicole Cacho; Elizabeth Plasencia; Alice S Rhoton-Vlasak; Josef Neu; Lindsay Thompson; Magda Francois; Keval Patel; William R Hogan; Gloria P Lipori; Matthew J Gurka Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-03-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mercedes Díaz-Rodríguez; Celia Pérez-Muñoz; José Manuel Lendínez-de la Cruz; Martina Fernández-Gutiérrez; Pilar Bas-Sarmiento; Bernardo C Ferriz-Mas Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-03-26 Impact factor: 3.390