A Lenore Ackerman1, Toby C Chai2. 1. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 99 N. La Cienega Blvd. Suite M102, Beverly Hills, CA 90211, USA. 2. Boston Medical Center, Boston University School of Medicine, 725 Albany St., Suite 3B, Shapiro Building, Boston, MA 02118, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The article discusses (1) techniques used to study bacterial urinary microbiota; (2) existence of non-bacterial urinary microbiota; (3) associations between changes in urinary microbiota and various benign lower urinary tract disorders. RECENT FINDINGS: Urine harbors a diverse microbial community that resides within it. A multitude of studies have identified differences in these communities associated with urologic conditions, suggesting that microbial communities may maintain normal bladder homeostasis. Technological advances in analytic approaches have improved our understanding of the urinary microbiome. The choice of urine sampling method (voided, catheterized, or aspirated) will significantly influence microbiome findings. Sex and age highly influence urinary microbiota; in addition to rigorous inclusion criteria, microbial studies must be sufficiently powered to overcome the substantial interindividual variability of urinary microbiota. Regardless of these complicating factors, studies have identified microbial patterns correlating with both urologic diagnoses and treatment responses. SUMMARY: Without a clear understanding of the variability of and exogenous influences on the urinary microbiota in the absence of disease, it has been challenging to reveal the microbial patterns responsible for disease pathophysiology. Host mechanisms in response to the urinary microbiome are also poorly understood. Additional research can address whether the manipulation of urinary microbiota will benefit lower urinary tract health.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The article discusses (1) techniques used to study bacterial urinary microbiota; (2) existence of non-bacterial urinary microbiota; (3) associations between changes in urinary microbiota and various benign lower urinary tract disorders. RECENT FINDINGS: Urine harbors a diverse microbial community that resides within it. A multitude of studies have identified differences in these communities associated with urologic conditions, suggesting that microbial communities may maintain normal bladder homeostasis. Technological advances in analytic approaches have improved our understanding of the urinary microbiome. The choice of urine sampling method (voided, catheterized, or aspirated) will significantly influence microbiome findings. Sex and age highly influence urinary microbiota; in addition to rigorous inclusion criteria, microbial studies must be sufficiently powered to overcome the substantial interindividual variability of urinary microbiota. Regardless of these complicating factors, studies have identified microbial patterns correlating with both urologic diagnoses and treatment responses. SUMMARY: Without a clear understanding of the variability of and exogenous influences on the urinary microbiota in the absence of disease, it has been challenging to reveal the microbial patterns responsible for disease pathophysiology. Host mechanisms in response to the urinary microbiome are also poorly understood. Additional research can address whether the manipulation of urinary microbiota will benefit lower urinary tract health.
Authors: Cynthia S Fok; Xiang Gao; Huaiying Lin; Krystal J Thomas-White; Elizabeth R Mueller; Alan J Wolfe; Qunfeng Dong; Linda Brubaker Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2018-08-16 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Melinda G Abernethy; Amy Rosenfeld; James R White; Margaret G Mueller; Christina Lewicky-Gaupp; Kimberly Kenton Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Asha Rani; Ravi Ranjan; Halvor S McGee; Kalista E Andropolis; Dipti V Panchal; Zahraa Hajjiri; Daniel C Brennan; Patricia W Finn; David L Perkins Journal: Transl Res Date: 2016-09-09 Impact factor: 7.012
Authors: A Lenore Ackerman; Jennifer Tash Anger; Muhammad Umair Khalique; James E Ackerman; Jie Tang; Jayoung Kim; David M Underhill; Michael R Freeman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-04-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Yuko M Komesu; Holly E Richter; Benjamin Carper; Darrell L Dinwiddie; Emily S Lukacz; Nazema Y Siddiqui; Vivian W Sung; Halina M Zyczynski; Beri Ridgeway; Rebecca G Rogers; Lily A Arya; Donna Mazloomdoost; Marie G Gantz Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2018-06-16 Impact factor: 1.932
Authors: Evan Barr-Beare; Vijay Saxena; Evann E Hilt; Krystal Thomas-White; Megan Schober; Birong Li; Brian Becknell; David S Hains; Alan J Wolfe; Andrew L Schwaderer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-10-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: J Curtis Nickel; Alisa Stephens; A Lenore Ackerman; Jennifer T Anger; Henry H Lai; Garth D Ehrlich Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2022-09 Impact factor: 2.052
Authors: David Hernández-Hernández; Bárbara Padilla-Fernández; María Yanira Ortega-González; David Manuel Castro-Díaz Journal: Curr Bladder Dysfunct Rep Date: 2021-12-01
Authors: Kardelen Ecevit; Eduardo Silva; Luísa C Rodrigues; Ivo Aroso; Alexandre A Barros; Joana M Silva; Rui L Reis Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2022-02-23 Impact factor: 3.623