Vinogradova K. O., Gavrilyuk V. G., Sklyar T. V., Sokolova I. E.

MICROBIOLOGY

Scentific article

In the present-day conditions, urogenital imbalance is an urgent problem in scientific and medical practice, given that not all mechanisms of development of dysbiotic conditions have been fully understood, there are no clear criteria for diagnosis, difficulties in the selection of effective therapy due to antibiotic resistance. Asymptomatic media and lack of a specific inflammatory pattern present difficulties in diagnosis, which in turn contributes to chronicity of the process, adverse effects on reproductive function and reduced quality of life. The method of polymerase chain reaction in real time makes it possible to identify pathogens even at their low concentration, to carry out etiological diagnostics in the early stages, to evaluate the qualitative and quantitative content of urogenital biocenosis, to control the quality of bioassay and the effectiveness of therapy. As a result of the PCR analysis in the real time composition of the microbiome of the urogenital tract among 474 patients of the Medical Diagnostic Center (Dnipro) during 2017-2019, in 290 persons there were found dysbiotic disorders. During the studied period, the tendency to decrease the incidence of dysbiotic conditions in the genital area in the persons of the youngest reproductive age and the elderly category is shown, but the growth of imbalances in women and men of the reproductive age of the older group (36-55 years) were present. Dysbiotic disorders were caused by a decrease in the bacterial titers of Lactobacillus bacteria to 0-106 CFU/ml and excessive colonization by opportunistic and pathogenic microorganisms: in the female genital area – Gardnerella vaginalis, Eubacterium spp., Ureaplasma spp. (106 -109 CFU/ml) in 33.33-74.55%, Candida spp. (104 -109 CFU/ml) in 20.0-30.0% of patients; in the urogenital system of men – Eubacterium spp., Bacteroides spp., Peptostreptococcus spp., Anaerococcus spp. (104 – 109 CFU/ml) in 58.33-100% of patients; and the presence of true pathogens – Mycoplasma genitalium, Trichomonas vaginalis, Neisseria gonorrhoae, Chlamydia trachomatis (103 -107 CFU/ml) in 1.66-9.31% of males. The results obtained from the basis are useful for finding and developing new diagnostic approaches, remedies and therapy of dysbiotic syndromes for the purpose of health for the next generations.

dysbiotic syndrome, urogenital tract, polymerase chain reaction, monitoring, age categories.

1. Magistro G, Stief CG. The urinary tract microbiome: the answer to all our open questions? Eur Urol. 2018;5(1):36-8.
2. Aragón IM, Herrera-Imbroda B, Queipo-Ortuño MI, Castillo E, Del Moral JS, Gómez-Millán J, et al. The Urinary Tract Microbiome in Health and Disease. Eur. Urol. 2018;4(1):128-38.
3. Whiteside SA, Razvi H, Dave S, Reid G, Burton JP. The microbiome of the urinary tract – a role beyond infection. Nat Rev Urol. 2018;12(1):81-90.
4. Wolfe AJ, Brubaker L. “Sterile urine” and the presence of bacteria. Eur Urol. 2018;68(1):173-4.
5. Brubaker L, Wolfe AJ. The new world of the urinary microbiota in women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213(1):644-9.
6. Schneeweiss J, Koch M, Umek W. The human urinary microbiome and how it relates to urogynecology. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(1):1307- 12.
7. Radzinski VE, Hamoshina MB, Kaygorodova LA. Correction of vaginal biocenosis disorders: march in place or moving forward? Reproductive endocrinology. 2014;4(18):92-100.
8. Gottschick C, Deng ZL, Vital M, Masur C, Abels C, Pieper DH, Wagner-Döbler I. The urinary microbiota of men and women and its changes in women during bacterial vaginosis and antibiotic treatment. Microbiome. 2017;5(99):1-15.
9. Whiteside SA, Razvi H, Dave S, Reid G, Burton JP. The microbiome of the urinary tract – a role beyond infection. Nat Rev Urol. 2018;12(1):81-90.
10. Bao Y, Al KF, Chanyi RM, Whiteside S, Dewar M, Razvi H, et al. Questions and challenges associated with studying the microbiome of the urinary tract. Ann Transl Med. 2017;5(2):28-33.
11. Gergova RT, Strateva TV, Mitov IG. Gardnerella vaginalis-associated bacterial vaginosis in Bulgarian women. The Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2013;17(3):307-13.
12. Teixeira GS, Carvalho FP, Arantes RM, Nunes AC, Moreira JL, Mendonca M, et al. Characteristics of Lactobacillus and Gardnerella vaginalis from women with or without bacterial vaginosis and their relationships in gnotobiotic mice. J Med Microbiol. 2012;61(1):1074-81.
13. Janulaitiene M, Paliulyte V, Grinceviciene S, Zakareviciene J, Vladisauskiene A, Marcinkute A, et al. Prevalence and distribution of Gardnerella vaginalis subgroups in women with and without bacterial vaginosis. BMC Infect Dis. 2017;17(1):389-94.
14. Gruzevsky OA, Vladimirova MP. The results of a complex bacteriological study of vaginal contents under the conditions of bacterial vaginosis. Advances in biology and medicine. 2014;2(2):54-7.
15. Manzoor S, Aziz M, Sheikh AS. Identification and Characterization of Candida on CHROM Agar™ in Pregnant Women of Multan, Pakistan. J Women’s Health Care. 2018;7(1):2-8.
16. Okodo M, Kawamura J, Okayama K, Kawai K, Fukui T, Shiina N, et al. Cytological features associated with ureaplasma urealyticum in pap cervical smear. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2017;18(8):2239-42.
17. Kiessling AA, Desmarais BM, Yin HZ, Loverde JJ, Eyre RC. Detection and identification of bacterial DNA in semen. Fertility and Sterility. 2008;90(5):1744-56.

«Bulletin of problems biology and medicine» Issue 2 (156), 2020 year, 226-231 pages, index UDK 579.61

10.29254/2077-4214-2020-2-156-226-231