Megan B Shannon1, Roberto Limeira2, Danielle Johansen2, Xiang Gao3, Huaiying Lin3, Qunfeng Dong4, Alan J Wolfe5, Elizabeth R Mueller6. 1. Departments of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Urology, Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University Chicago, 2160 S. First Ave, Maywood, IL, 60153, USA. 2. Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University Chicago, 2160 S. First Ave, Maywood, IL, 60153, USA. 3. Department of Public Health Sciences, Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University Chicago, 2160 S. First Ave, Maywood, IL, 60153, USA. 4. Department of Public Health Sciences, Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University Chicago, 2160 S. First Ave, Maywood, IL, 60153, USA. qdong@luc.edu. 5. Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University Chicago, 2160 S. First Ave, Maywood, IL, 60153, USA. awolfe@luc.edu. 6. Departments of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Urology, Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University Chicago, 2160 S. First Ave, Maywood, IL, 60153, USA. emuelle@lumc.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Presence of microbial communities (microbiota) in an organ system depends on environmental factors, such as oxygen availability. We describe a novel technique to measure bladder urine oxygen tension (BUOT) in ambulatory women and use that technique to compare BUOT values to female urinary microbiota and participant urinary signs and symptoms. METHODS: Ambulatory female urogynecology patients presenting for clinical care who were willing to undergo transurethral catheterization underwent BUOT determination with a non-invasive flow-through oxygen sensor. To detect urinary microbiota in the bladder, 16S rRNA gene sequencing was performed on catheterized urine. Multivariate statistical analyses were performed to examine potential correlations among BUOT, urinary microbiota compositions and clinical variables. RESULTS: Significant variation in BUOT existed between individuals (range: 0.47-51.5 mmHg; median: 23.1 ± 13.5). Microbiota compositions were associated with BUOT (p = 0.03). BUOT was significantly lower in urines that were nitrite negative on dipstick analysis (p = 0.0001) and in participants who answered yes to having urinary leakage on the validated Urinary Distress Inventory (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: BUOTs can be measured in ambulatory women. For urogynecology patients, a wide range of values exist. BUOT may be associated with the presence of urinary microbiota and resultant signs and symptoms.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Presence of microbial communities (microbiota) in an organ system depends on environmental factors, such as oxygen availability. We describe a novel technique to measure bladder urine oxygen tension (BUOT) in ambulatory women and use that technique to compare BUOT values to female urinary microbiota and participant urinary signs and symptoms. METHODS: Ambulatory female urogynecology patients presenting for clinical care who were willing to undergo transurethral catheterization underwent BUOT determination with a non-invasive flow-through oxygen sensor. To detect urinary microbiota in the bladder, 16S rRNA gene sequencing was performed on catheterized urine. Multivariate statistical analyses were performed to examine potential correlations among BUOT, urinary microbiota compositions and clinical variables. RESULTS: Significant variation in BUOT existed between individuals (range: 0.47-51.5 mmHg; median: 23.1 ± 13.5). Microbiota compositions were associated with BUOT (p = 0.03). BUOT was significantly lower in urines that were nitrite negative on dipstick analysis (p = 0.0001) and in participants who answered yes to having urinary leakage on the validated Urinary Distress Inventory (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: BUOTs can be measured in ambulatory women. For urogynecology patients, a wide range of values exist. BUOT may be associated with the presence of urinary microbiota and resultant signs and symptoms.
Entities:
Keywords:
Human microbiome; Oxygen tension; Urinary bladder
Authors: Travis K Price; Tanaka Dune; Evann E Hilt; Krystal J Thomas-White; Stephanie Kliethermes; Cynthia Brincat; Linda Brubaker; Alan J Wolfe; Elizabeth R Mueller; Paul C Schreckenberger Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2016-03-09 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Germar-Michael Pinggera; Michael Mitterberger; Eberhard Steiner; Leo Pallwein; Ferdinand Frauscher; Friedrich Aigner; Georg Bartsch; Hannes Strasser Journal: BJU Int Date: 2008-05-12 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Linda Brubaker; Charles W Nager; Holly E Richter; Anthony Visco; Ingrid Nygaard; Matthew D Barber; Joseph Schaffer; Susan Meikle; Dennis Wallace; Noriko Shibata; Alan J Wolfe Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2014-02-11 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Rajvinder Khasriya; Sanchutha Sathiananthamoorthy; Salim Ismail; Michael Kelsey; Mike Wilson; Jennifer L Rohn; James Malone-Lee Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2013-04-17 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Meghan M Pearce; Evann E Hilt; Amy B Rosenfeld; Michael J Zilliox; Krystal Thomas-White; Cynthia Fok; Stephanie Kliethermes; Paul C Schreckenberger; Linda Brubaker; Xiaowu Gai; Alan J Wolfe Journal: MBio Date: 2014-07-08 Impact factor: 7.867
Authors: Virginia Perez-Carrasco; Ana Soriano-Lerma; Miguel Soriano; José Gutiérrez-Fernández; Jose A Garcia-Salcedo Journal: Front Cell Infect Microbiol Date: 2021-05-18 Impact factor: 5.293
Authors: Michael L Neugent; Neha V Hulyalkar; Vivian H Nguyen; Philippe E Zimmern; Nicole J De Nisco Journal: mBio Date: 2020-04-28 Impact factor: 7.867