FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Scientific reports2022; 12(1); 14790; doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-18971-6

The healthy equine uterus harbors a distinct core microbiome plus a rich and diverse microbiome that varies with geographical location.

Abstract: The goal of this study was to understand the composition and existence of the resident uterine microbiome in healthy mares and to establish the presence of a core microbiome for the healthy equine uterus. We analyzed the microbiomes of 35 healthy mares that are long-time residents of three farms in Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Australia as well as that of 19 mares purchased from scattered owners in the Southern Mid-Western states of the United States. Over 6 million paired-end reads of the V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene were obtained resulting in 19,542 unique Amplicon Sequence Variants (ASVs). ASVs were assigned to 17 known phyla and 213 known genera. Most abundant genera across all animals were Pseudomonas (27%) followed by Lonsdalea (8%), Lactobacillus (7.5%), Escherichia/Shigella (4.5%), and Prevotella (3%). Oklahoma and Louisiana samples were dominated by Pseudomonas (75%). Lonsdalea (28%) was the most abundant genus in the Australian samples but was not found in any other region. Microbial diversity, richness, and evenness of the equine uterine microbiome is largely dependent on the geographical location of the animal. However, we observed a core uterine microbiome consisting of Lactobacillus, Escherichia/Shigella, Streptococcus, Blautia, Staphylococcus, Klebsiella, Acinetobacter, and Peptoanaerobacter.
© 2022. The Author(s).
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2022-08-30 PubMed ID: 36042332PubMed Central: PMC9427864DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-18971-6Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article
  • Research Support
  • Non-U.S. Gov't

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The study investigates the microbiome within the uterus of healthy horses, revealing its diverse makeup and dependence on geographical location while also identifying a core set of microbes commonly present.

Research Objective

  • The primary goal of this study was to comprehend and describe the combination of microbes, also known as the microbiome, residing in healthy equine uteri. Researchers aimed to identify a core uterine microbiome, i.e., a set of microorganisms that is habitually present in every healthy equine uterus, regardless of location or other conditions.

Methodology

  • Under this study, the uterine microbiomes of 35 healthy mares were analyzed. The mares were residents of three different farms located in Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Australia.
  • Additionally, the microbiomes of 19 mares purchased from various owners in the Southern Mid-Western states of the U.S. were also analyzed.
  • The team collected and investigated over 6 million paired-end reads of the V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene, providing a substantial sample to work with.
  • This analysis led to the identification of 19,542 unique Amplicon Sequence Variants (ASVs), a measure of microbial diversity within the samples. These ASVs confirmed the presence of 17 known phyla and 213 known genera of microorganisms.

Findings

  • The most common genus was Pseudomonas, found in 27% of all animals tested. Following Pseudomonas, in decreasing order of prevalence, were Lonsdalea (8%), Lactobacillus (7.5%), Escherichia/Shigella (4.5%), and Prevotella (3%).
  • Geography held an essential bearing on the uterine microbiome- Pseudomonas dominated (75%) the samples from Oklahoma and Louisiana. Interestingly, Lonsdalea was the most often seen genus in Australian samples (28%) but was absent from samples from the other locations.
  • Notwithstanding the geographical usage, the study identified a core uterine microbiome consisting of Lactobacillus, Escherichia/Shigella, Streptococcus, Blautia, Staphylococcus, Klebsiella, Acinetobacter, and Peptoanaerobacter. These microorganisms were present across the samples analyzed.

Implications

  • The findings of this research highlight the vast diversity, richness, and evenness of the equine uterine microbiome and how it’s heavily reliant on the animal’s geographical location.
  • Knowledge of a core uterine microbiome could potentially guide promoting uterine health and treating diseases related to uterine microbial imbalance.

Cite This Article

APA
Holyoak GR, Premathilake HU, Lyman CC, Sones JL, Gunn A, Wieneke X, DeSilva U. (2022). The healthy equine uterus harbors a distinct core microbiome plus a rich and diverse microbiome that varies with geographical location. Sci Rep, 12(1), 14790. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-18971-6

Publication

Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
NlmUniqueID: 101563288
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 12
Issue: 1
Pages: 14790

Researcher Affiliations

Holyoak, G R
  • Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA.
Premathilake, H U
  • Department of Animal and Food Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA.
Lyman, C C
  • College of Veterinary Medicine, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA.
Sones, J L
  • School of Veterinary Medicine, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA.
Gunn, A
  • School of Agricultural, Environmental and Veterinary Sciences and Gulbali Institute, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW, Australia.
Wieneke, X
  • Department of Animal and Food Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA.
  • Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine; Center for Genomics, Anne and Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital, Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
DeSilva, U
  • Department of Animal and Food Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA. udaya.desilva@okstate.edu.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Australia
  • Clostridiales / genetics
  • Escherichia / genetics
  • Female
  • Horses / genetics
  • Lactobacillus / genetics
  • Microbiota / genetics
  • Prevotella / genetics
  • RNA, Ribosomal, 16S / genetics
  • Uterus

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

References

This article includes 65 references
  1. Ansbacher R, Boyson WA, Morris JA. Sterility of the uterine cavity. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1967;99:394–396.
    doi: 10.1016/S0002-9378(16)34549-5pubmed: 4962972google scholar: lookup
  2. Whitman WB, Coleman DC, Wiebe WJ. Prokaryotes: The unseen majority. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1998;95:6578–6583.
    doi: 10.1073/pnas.95.12.6578pmc: PMC33863pubmed: 9618454google scholar: lookup
  3. Shade A. Culturing captures members of the soil rare biosphere. Environ. Microbiol. 2012;14:2247–2252.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2012.02817.xpmc: PMC3466410pubmed: 22788977google scholar: lookup
  4. Handelsman J. Metagenomics: Application of genomics to uncultured microorganisms (vol 68, pg 669, 2004). Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2005;69:195–195.
    doi: 10.1128/mmbr.69.1.195.2005pmc: PMC539003pubmed: 15590779google scholar: lookup
  5. Silva EN. Amoxicillin-induced gut dysbiosis influences estrous cycle in mice and cytokine expression in the ovary and the caecum. Am. J. Reprod. Immunol. 2020.
    doi: 10.1111/aji.13247pubmed: 32304259google scholar: lookup
  6. Theron J, Cloete TE. Molecular techniques for determining microbial diversity and community structure in natural environments. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 2000;26:37–57.
    doi: 10.1080/10408410091154174pubmed: 10782339google scholar: lookup
  7. Swidsinski A. Presence of a polymicrobial endometrial biofilm in patients with bacterial vaginosis. PLoS One 2013.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053997pmc: PMC3540019pubmed: 23320114google scholar: lookup
  8. Heil BA, Paccamonti DL, Sones JL. Role for the mammalian female reproductive tract microbiome in pregnancy outcomes. Physiol. Genom. 2019;51:390–399.
    doi: 10.1152/physiolgenomics.00045.2019pubmed: 31251700google scholar: lookup
  9. Lyman CC. Canine endometrial and vaginal microbiomes reveal distinct and complex ecosystems. PLoS One 2019.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210157pmc: PMC6322750pubmed: 30615657google scholar: lookup
  10. Swartz JD. Characterization of the vaginal microbiota of ewes and cows reveals a unique microbiota with low levels of lactobacilli and near-neutral pH. Front. Vet. Sci. 2014;1:19.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2014.00019pmc: PMC4672155pubmed: 26664918google scholar: lookup
  11. Ferris RA. Model of chronic equine endometritis involving a Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm. Infect. Immun. 2017.
    doi: 10.1128/IAI.00332-17pmc: PMC5695105pubmed: 28970274google scholar: lookup
  12. Davis HA, Stanton MB, Thungrat K, Boothe DM. Uterine bacterial isolates from mares and their resistance to antimicrobials: 8296 cases (2003–2008). J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2013;242:977–983.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.242.7.977pubmed: 23517211google scholar: lookup
  13. Troedsson MH. Mating-induced endometritis: Physiology or pathology?. Vet. J. 2014;199:9–10.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2013.10.012pubmed: 24280587google scholar: lookup
  14. Rebordão MR. Physiopathologic mechanisms involved in mare endometrosis. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 2014;49:82–87.
    doi: 10.1111/rda.12397pubmed: 25277436google scholar: lookup
  15. Ferris RA. Endometritis: Diagnostic tools for infectious endometritis. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Equine Pract. 2016;32:481–498.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cveq.2016.08.001pubmed: 27810037google scholar: lookup
  16. Moreno I, Simon C. Deciphering the effect of reproductive tract microbiota on human reproduction. Reprod. Med. Biol. 2019;18:40–50.
    doi: 10.1002/rmb2.12249pmc: PMC6332752pubmed: 30655720google scholar: lookup
  17. Rock KS. Detectable differences in the endometrial microbiome between normal and susceptible mares using metagenomic profiling and conventional bacterial culture. Clin. Theriogenol. 2011;3:376.
  18. Schnobrich MR, Bradecamp EA, Scoggin CF. Next generation DNA sequencing, culture and cytology results in 29 mares with suspected endometritis. Clin. Theriogenol. 2018;10:338.
  19. Ocejo M, Oporto B, Hurtado A. 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing characterization of caecal microbiome composition of broilers and free-range slow-growing chickens throughout their productive lifespan. Sci. Rep. 2019.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-39323-xpmc: PMC6385345pubmed: 30792439google scholar: lookup
  20. Clemmons BA. Vaginal and uterine bacterial communities in postpartum lactating cows. Front. Microbiol. 2017.
    doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.01047pmc: PMC5463355pubmed: 28642755google scholar: lookup
  21. Mangiafico SS. An R Companion for the Handbook of Biological Statistics. .
  22. Dhariwal A. MicrobiomeAnalyst: A web-based tool for comprehensive statistical, visual and meta-analysis of microbiome data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017;45:W180–W188.
    doi: 10.1093/nar/gkx295pmc: PMC5570177pubmed: 28449106google scholar: lookup
  23. Moore SG, Ericsson AC, Poock SE, Melendez P, Lucy MC. Hot topic: 16S rRNA gene sequencing reveals the microbiome of the virgin and pregnant bovine uterus. J. Dairy Sci. 2017;100:4953–4960.
    doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-12592pmc: PMC6344888pubmed: 28434745google scholar: lookup
  24. Yang D, Xu W. Clustering in human microbiome sequencing data: A distance-based unsupervised learning model. Microorganisms 2020;8:1–18.
    doi: 10.3390/microorganisms8101612pmc: PMC7589204pubmed: 33092203google scholar: lookup
  25. Risely A. Applying the core microbiome to understand host–microbe systems. J. Anim. Ecol. 2020;89:1549–1558.
    doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.13229pubmed: 32248522google scholar: lookup
  26. Heberle H, Meirelles G, da Silva FR, Telles GP, Minghim R. InteractiVenn: A web-based tool for the analysis of sets through Venn diagrams. BMC Bioinform. 2015.
    doi: 10.1186/s12859-015-0611-3pmc: PMC4455604pubmed: 25994840google scholar: lookup
  27. Segata N. Metagenomic biomarker discovery and explanation. Genome Biol. 2011;12:R60.
    doi: 10.1186/gb-2011-12-6-r60pmc: PMC3218848pubmed: 21702898google scholar: lookup
  28. Love MI, Huber W, Anders S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 2014.
    doi: 10.1186/s13059-014-0550-8pmc: PMC4302049pubmed: 25516281google scholar: lookup
  29. Wassenaar TM, Panigrahi P. Is a foetus developing in a sterile environment?. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2014;59:572–579.
    doi: 10.1111/lam.12334pubmed: 25273890google scholar: lookup
  30. Karstrup CC. Presence and localization of bacteria in the bovine endometrium postpartum using fluorescence in situ hybridization. Theriogenology 2017;92:167–175.
    doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2017.01.026pubmed: 28237333google scholar: lookup
  31. Franasiak JM, Scott RT. Reproductive tract microbiome in assisted reproductive technologies. Fertil. Steril. 2015;104:1364–1371.
    doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.10.012pubmed: 26597628google scholar: lookup
  32. Verstraelen H. Characterisation of the human uterine microbiome in non-pregnant women through deep sequencing of the V1–2 region of the 16S rRNA gene. PeerJ 2016.
    doi: 10.7717/peerj.1602pmc: PMC4730988pubmed: 26823997google scholar: lookup
  33. Yang X. The normal vaginal and uterine bacterial microbiome in giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca). Microbiol. Res. 2017;199:1–9.
    doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2017.01.003pubmed: 28454704google scholar: lookup
  34. Holyoak GR, Lyman CC, Wieneke X, DeSilva U. The equine endometrial microbiome. Clin. Theriogenol. 2018;10:273–277.
  35. Pellati D. Genital tract infections and infertility. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2008;140:3–11.
    doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2008.03.009pubmed: 18456385google scholar: lookup
  36. Hong CB. Etiology and pathology of equine placentitis. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 1993;5:56–63.
    doi: 10.1177/104063879300500113pubmed: 8466982google scholar: lookup
  37. Johnson CT, Lupson GR, Lawrence KE. The bovine placentome in bacterial and mycotic abortions. Vet. Rec. 1994;134:263–266.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.134.11.263pubmed: 8197693google scholar: lookup
  38. Hurtgen JP. Pathogenesis and treatment of endometritis in the mare: A review. Theriogenology 2006;66:560–566.
    doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2006.04.006pubmed: 16824588google scholar: lookup
  39. Leblanc M, Causey R. Clinical and subclinical endometritis in the mare: Both threats to fertility. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 2009;44:10–22.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0531.2009.01485.xpubmed: 19660076google scholar: lookup
  40. Martabano House A. Septiciemia in Foals. .
  41. Benko T. Incidence of bacterial pathogens in equine uterine swabs, their antibiotic resistance patterns, and selected reproductive indices in English thoroughbred mares during the foal heat cycle. Vet. Med. 2015;60:613–620.
    doi: 10.17221/8529-VETMEDgoogle scholar: lookup
  42. Ong CT. Interrogating the bovine reproductive tract metagenomes using culture-independent approaches: A systematic review. Anim. Microbiome 2021;3:41.
    doi: 10.1186/s42523-021-00106-3pmc: PMC8191003pubmed: 34108039google scholar: lookup
  43. Allen JL, Begg AP, Browning GF. Outbreak of equine endometritis caused by a genotypically identical strain of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J. Vet. Diagn. Investig. 2011;23:1236–1239.
    doi: 10.1177/1040638711425589pubmed: 22362810google scholar: lookup
  44. Anzai T, Kamada M, Kanemaru T. Serotypes and drug susceptibility of Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from mares with metritis. Bull. Equine Res. Inst. 1991;1991:12–20.
  45. Quast C. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: Improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:D590–D596.
    doi: 10.1093/nar/gks1219pmc: PMC3531112pubmed: 23193283google scholar: lookup
  46. Berruete IM. First report of bark canker disease of poplar caused by Lonsdalea quercina subp. Populi in Spain. Plant Dis. 2016;100:2159.
    doi: 10.1094/PDIS-03-16-0405-PDNgoogle scholar: lookup
  47. Kovacova V. Recovery of a phytopathogenic bacterium Lonsdalea quercina from a lesser horseshoe bat in Moravian karst, Czech Republic. For. Pathol. 2018.
    doi: 10.1111/efp.12379google scholar: lookup
  48. Husseneder C, Park JS, Howells A, Tikhe CV, Davis JA. Bacteria associated with Piezodorus guildinii (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae), with special reference to those transmitted by feeding. Environ. Entomol. 2017;46:159–166.
    doi: 10.1093/ee/nvw112pubmed: 28025221google scholar: lookup
  49. DiGiulio DB. Temporal and spatial variation of the human microbiota during pregnancy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015;112:11060–11065.
    doi: 10.1073/pnas.1502875112pmc: PMC4568272pubmed: 26283357google scholar: lookup
  50. Benner M, Ferwerda G, Joosten I, van der Molen RG. How uterine microbiota might be responsible for a receptive, fertile endometrium. Hum. Reprod. Update 2018;24:393–415.
    doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmy012pubmed: 29668899google scholar: lookup
  51. Moreno I. Evidence that the endometrial microbiota has an effect on implantation success or failure. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2016;215:684–703.
    doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.09.075pubmed: 27717732google scholar: lookup
  52. Barba M. Vaginal microbiota is stable throughout the estrous cycle in Arabian maress. Animals 2020;10:1–14.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10112020pmc: PMC7692283pubmed: 33153053google scholar: lookup
  53. Li C, Tucker-Kellogg L, Nagarajan N. System biology modeling with compositional microbiome data reveals personalized gut microbial dynamics and keystone species. bioRxiv 2018.
  54. Flores EJ. Peptoanaerobacter stomatis primes human neutrophils and induces granule exocytosis. Infect. Immun. 2017.
    doi: 10.1128/IAI.01043-16pmc: PMC5478963pubmed: 28438978google scholar: lookup
  55. Zheng J. The placental microbiome varies in association with low birth weight in full-term neonates. Nutrients 2015;7:6924–6937.
    doi: 10.3390/n炅315pmc: PMC4555154pubmed: 26287241google scholar: lookup
  56. Briana DD, Papaevangelou V, Malamitsi-Puchner A. The jury is still out on the existence of a placental microbiome. Acta Paediatr. Int. J. Paediatr. 2021;110:2958–2963.
    doi: 10.1111/apa.16048pubmed: 34319607google scholar: lookup
  57. McKnight DT. microDecon: A highly accurate read-subtraction tool for the post-sequencing removal of contamination in metabarcoding studies. Environ. DNA 2019;1:14–25.
    doi: 10.1002/edn3.11google scholar: lookup
  58. Stinson LF, Boyce MC, Payne MS, Keelan JA. The not-so-sterile womb: Evidence that the human fetus is exposed to bacteria prior to birth. Front. Microbiol. 2019.
    doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.01124pmc: PMC6558212pubmed: 31231319google scholar: lookup
  59. Chen C. The microbiota continuum along the female reproductive tract and its relation to uterine-related diseases. Nat. Commun. 2017.
    doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-00901-0pmc: PMC5645390pubmed: 29042534google scholar: lookup
  60. Bicalho MLS, Machado VS, Higgins CH, Lima FS, Bicalho RC. Genetic and functional analysis of the bovine uterine microbiota. Part I: Metritis versus healthy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2017;100:3850–3862.
    doi: 10.3168/jds.2016-12058pubmed: 28259404google scholar: lookup
  61. Percie du Sert N. The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol. 2020;18:e3000410.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000410pmc: PMC7360023pubmed: 32663219google scholar: lookup
  62. Heil BA. Metagenetic characterization of the resident equine uterine microbiome using multiple techniques. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2018.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2018.05.156google scholar: lookup
  63. Diel de Amorim M. Comparison of clinical signs, endometrial culture, endometrial cytology, uterine low-volume lavage, and uterine biopsy and combinations in the diagnosis of equine endometritis. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2016;44:54–61.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2015.10.012google scholar: lookup
  64. Callahan BJ. DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat. Methods. 2016;13:581–583.
    doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3869pmc: PMC4927377pubmed: 27214047google scholar: lookup
  65. Kumar S, Stecher G, Tamura K. MEGA7: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2016;33:1870–1874.
    doi: 10.1093/molbev/msw054pmc: PMC8210823pubmed: 27004904google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 18 times.
  1. Beckers KF, Liu CC, Gomes VCL, Schulz CJ, Childers GW, Fedorka CE, Sones JL. Effects of Intra-uterine Ceftiofur on the Equine Uterine Microbiome. Vet Sci 2025 Aug 30;12(9).
    doi: 10.3390/vetsci12090837pubmed: 41012762google scholar: lookup
  2. Yáñez Ramil U, Jezierska S, Krupa M, Bogado Pascottini O. Fundamentals of microbiome-based therapies for reproductive tract inflammatory diseases in domestic animals. Anim Reprod 2025;22(3):e20250030.
    doi: 10.1590/1984-3143-AR2025-0030pubmed: 40933872google scholar: lookup
  3. Guo L, Holyoak GR, DeSilva U. Endometrial microbiome in mares with and without clinical endometritis. Front Vet Sci 2025;12:1588432.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2025.1588432pubmed: 40822659google scholar: lookup
  4. Herzog F, Crissman KR, Beckers KF, Zhou G, Liu CC, Sones JL. Lactobacillus Genus Complex Probiotic-Induced Changes on the Equine Clitoral Microbiome. Vet Sci 2025 Mar 3;12(3).
    doi: 10.3390/vetsci12030232pubmed: 40266944google scholar: lookup
  5. da Silva-Álvarez E, Gómez-Arrones V, Correa-Fiz F, Martín-Cano FE, Gaitskell-Phillips G, Carrasco JJ, Rey J, Aparicio IM, Peña FJ, Alonso JM, Ortega-Ferrusola C. Metagenomic and proteomic analyses reveal similar reproductive microbial profiles and shared functional pathways in uterine immune regulation in mares and jennies. PLoS One 2025;20(4):e0321389.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0321389pubmed: 40238748google scholar: lookup
  6. Gil-Miranda A, Macnicol J, Orellana-Guerrero D, Samper JC, Gomez DE. Reproductive Tract Microbiota of Mares. Vet Sci 2024 Jul 18;11(7).
    doi: 10.3390/vetsci11070324pubmed: 39058008google scholar: lookup
  7. Gil-Miranda A, Caddey B, Orellana-Guerrero D, Smith H, Samper JC, Gomez DE. Vaginal and Uterine Microbiota of Healthy Maiden Mares during Estrus. Vet Sci 2024 Jul 18;11(7).
    doi: 10.3390/vetsci11070323pubmed: 39058007google scholar: lookup
  8. Ayalew LE, Mekuria ZH, Despres B, Saab ME, Ojha S. Genome Sequence Comparisons between Small and Large Colony Phenotypes of Equine Clinical Isolates of Arcanobacterium hippocoleae. Animals (Basel) 2024 May 29;14(11).
    doi: 10.3390/ani14111609pubmed: 38891657google scholar: lookup
  9. Virendra A, Gulavane SU, Ahmed ZA, Reddy R, Chaudhari RJ, Gaikwad SM, Shelar RR, Ingole SD, Thorat VD, Khanam A, Khan FA. Metagenomic analysis unravels novel taxonomic differences in the uterine microbiome between healthy mares and mares with endometritis. Vet Med Sci 2024 Mar;10(2):e1369.
    doi: 10.1002/vms3.1369pubmed: 38357732google scholar: lookup
  10. Silva JA, Castañares M, Mouguelar H, Valenciano JA, Pellegrino MS. Isolation of lactic acid bacteria from the reproductive tract of mares as potentially beneficial strains to prevent equine endometritis. Vet Res Commun 2024 Jun;48(3):1353-1366.
    doi: 10.1007/s11259-024-10295-2pubmed: 38233700google scholar: lookup
  11. Heil BA, van Heule M, Thompson SK, Kearns TA, Oberhaus EL, King G, Daels P, Dini P, Sones JL. Effect of Sampling Method on Detection of the Equine Uterine Microbiome during Estrus. Vet Sci 2023 Nov 8;10(11).
    doi: 10.3390/vetsci10110644pubmed: 37999467google scholar: lookup
  12. Banchi P, Colitti B, Opsomer G, Rota A, Van Soom A. The dogma of the sterile uterus revisited: does microbial seeding occur during fetal life in humans and animals?. Reproduction 2024 Jan 1;167(1).
    doi: 10.1530/REP-23-0078pubmed: 37903182google scholar: lookup
  13. Thomson P, García P, Río CD, Castro R, Núñez A, Miranda C. Antimicrobial Resistance and Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase Genes in Enterobacterales, Pseudomonas and Acinetobacter Isolates from the Uterus of Healthy Mares. Pathogens 2023 Sep 8;12(9).
    doi: 10.3390/pathogens12091145pubmed: 37764953google scholar: lookup
  14. Beckers KF, Gomes VCL, Crissman KR, Liu CC, Schulz CJ, Childers GW, Sones JL. Metagenetic Analysis of the Pregnant Microbiome in Horses. Animals (Basel) 2023 Jun 15;13(12).
    doi: 10.3390/ani13121999pubmed: 37370509google scholar: lookup
  15. Tukia E, Hallman I, Penttilä M, Hänninen S, Kareskoski M. RNA in situ hybridization of Escherichia coli in equine endometrial biopsies. Front Vet Sci 2023;10:1186051.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1186051pubmed: 37360403google scholar: lookup
  16. Nesse LL, Osland AM, Vestby LK. The Role of Biofilms in the Pathogenesis of Animal Bacterial Infections. Microorganisms 2023 Feb 28;11(3).
    doi: 10.3390/microorganisms11030608pubmed: 36985183google scholar: lookup
  17. Poole RK, Soffa DR, McAnally BE, Smith MS, Hickman-Brown KJ, Stockland EL. Reproductive Microbiomes in Domestic Livestock: Insights Utilizing 16S rRNA Gene Amplicon Community Sequencing. Animals (Basel) 2023 Jan 31;13(3).
    doi: 10.3390/ani13030485pubmed: 36766374google scholar: lookup
  18. Asadi B, Seyedasgari F, Ashrafi Tamai I, Yarmohammadi M, Ebadi R, Kim E, Barin A. Isolated Bacteria from the Uteri of Camels with Different Reproductive Backgrounds: A Study on Sampling Methodology, Prevalence, and Clinical Significance. Vet Sci 2023 Jan 5;10(1).
    doi: 10.3390/vetsci10010039pubmed: 36669039google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,658 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.