Preprint
Article

This version is not peer-reviewed.

Salivary Prevotella qPCR Signal as an Exploratory Non-Invasive Diagnostic Adjunct for Rotterdam Phenotype Stratification in Women with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome

Submitted:

29 May 2026

Posted:

01 June 2026

You are already at the latest version

Abstract
Background/Objectives: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a heterogeneous endocrine-metabolic disorder, and Rotterdam-defined phenotypes may require more refined non-invasive adjunctive signals for phenotypic stratification. Saliva is a practical diagnostic matrix, but genus-level qPCR findings must be interpreted cautiously. This study evaluated whether salivary qPCR signals for Lactobacillus, Prevotella, and Bifidobacterium differ across Rotterdam-defined PCOS phenotypes and controls, with emphasis on the exploratory diagnostic relevance of Prevotella. Methods: This cross-sectional study included 110 women: 87 with PCOS and 23 controls. PCOS phenotypes were classified according to the Rotterdam criteria. Salivary microbial targets were assessed using SYBR Green-based genus-specific qPCR on a MyGo Mini S platform. Because the available standard-curve outputs did not support robust absolute CFU/mL conversion across all targets, inferential analyses were reported using Cq-based microbial signals; lower Cq values indicate higher target DNA signal. Group differences were evaluated using non-parametric tests, followed by Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc comparisons. Exploratory ROC and correlation analyses were retained only as hypothesis-generating diagnostic adjunct analyses. Results: Prevotella Cq values differed significantly across groups (p < 0.001), with lower median Cq values in selected hyperandrogenic and PCOM-related PCOS phenotypes compared with phenotype D and controls. Lactobacillus Cq values did not differ significantly across groups (p = 0.249), whereas Bifidobacterium showed an overall between-group difference (p < 0.001) with a less consistent post-hoc pattern. Among women with PCOS, Prevotella Cq values were associated with Ferriman-Gallwey score and polycystic ovarian morphology. Conclusions: Salivary Prevotella showed the clearest exploratory genus-level qPCR signal across Rotterdam-defined PCOS phenotypes. The findings support further evaluation of saliva-based microbial profiling as a non-invasive diagnostic adjunct for PCOS phenotype stratification, but they do not establish Prevotella as a validated standalone diagnostic biomarker or absolute bacterial load estimate.
Keywords: 
;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  

1. Introduction

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common endocrine disorder among reproductive-age women and is characterized by heterogeneous reproductive, endocrine, and metabolic manifestations. The Rotterdam criteria remain widely used for clinical classification and generate four major phenotypes based on combinations of hyperandrogenism, ovulatory dysfunction, and polycystic ovarian morphology [1,2]. This phenotypic heterogeneity is clinically important because different phenotypes may carry different reproductive, metabolic, and inflammatory implications [3,4,5,6,7,8].
Microbiome research has become increasingly relevant to PCOS because microbial ecosystems may interact with androgen exposure, insulin resistance, low-grade inflammation, bile acid metabolism, and immune regulation [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16]. Most PCOS microbiome studies have focused on the gut or vaginal microbiome, whereas saliva remains less explored despite being easy to collect, repeatable, and acceptable in outpatient clinical settings [9,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31].
Prior salivary microbiome work in PCOS suggests that oral microbial composition may be associated with disease-related characteristics, but the evidence remains limited and methodologically heterogeneous [9,10,41]. Saliva may reflect both oral ecological conditions and systemic host factors; however, qPCR-based genus-level signals should be interpreted as molecular target signals rather than direct evidence of species-level community structure or functional microbiome activity.
Among candidate genera, Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, and Prevotella are biologically plausible targets because they have been implicated in microbial barrier function, host metabolic regulation, dietary pattern, immune signaling, and inflammatory tone [32,33,34,35,36,37]. Prevotella is especially context-dependent: different species and strains may be associated with either eubiotic fiber-related profiles or dysbiotic inflammatory states depending on host and environmental conditions [34,35,36,37].
Accordingly, this study analyzed qPCR-derived salivary Cq signals of Lactobacillus, Prevotella, and Bifidobacterium across Rotterdam-defined PCOS phenotypes and controls. From a diagnostic perspective, the objective was to examine whether genus-specific salivary microbial signals, particularly Prevotella, show phenotype-stratified patterns that could justify further validation as a non-invasive adjunct to conventional clinical phenotyping, rather than as a standalone diagnostic test.

2. Materials and Methods

This study used a cross-sectional design. Participants were recruited from premenopausal and infertile women who regularly attended outpatient clinical services. PCOS was diagnosed according to the Rotterdam criteria. Phenotype A was defined as hyperandrogenism, ovulatory dysfunction, and polycystic ovarian morphology; phenotype B as hyperandrogenism and ovulatory dysfunction without polycystic ovarian morphology; phenotype C as hyperandrogenism and polycystic ovarian morphology without ovulatory dysfunction; and phenotype D as ovulatory dysfunction and polycystic ovarian morphology without hyperandrogenism [1,2]. Controls were women without clinical PCOS according to the same diagnostic framework.
Eligible participants were women aged 18-42 years, clinically diagnosed with PCOS according to the Rotterdam criteria or classified as controls, willing to participate in the study, able to provide written informed consent, and willing to undergo the required research procedures, including blood and saliva sampling. Participants with incomplete key clinical or salivary qPCR data were excluded from the final analysis.
The final analysis set included 110 women in total, comprising 87 women with PCOS and 23 controls. Baseline variables recorded for analysis included age, Ferriman-Gallwey score, menstrual irregularity or ovulatory dysfunction, and polycystic ovarian morphology on transvaginal ultrasonography. Ferriman-Gallwey scoring was used as the clinical measure of hirsutism [42].
Saliva samples were collected in the morning after 1-2 hours of fasting. Participants were instructed not to brush their teeth, use mouthwash, or consume food immediately before sampling. Samples were collected into sterile containers and processed for DNA extraction. The manuscript should be interpreted with the limitation that detailed oral hygiene status, periodontal examination, recent antibiotic exposure, and dietary intake were not fully modeled as covariates.
Salivary microbial signals for Lactobacillus, Prevotella, and Bifidobacterium were assessed using genus-specific quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). DNA was extracted from saliva samples using the QIAamp DNA Stool Mini Kit (Qiagen, USA). qPCR amplification was performed using GoTaq qPCR Master Mix (Promega Corporation, USA) on a MyGo Mini S Real-Time PCR Cycler with MyGo Mini software version 3.5.6 (IT-IS Life Science Ltd., Ireland). The reaction mixture consisted of 12.5 uL of master mix, 5 uL of nuclease-free water, 1 uL of forward primer, 1 uL of reverse primer, and 5.5 uL of DNA template, for a total reaction volume of 25 uL.
The thermal profile consisted of an initial denaturation at 95 deg C for 120 s, followed by 40 amplification cycles of denaturation at 95 deg C, target-specific annealing, and extension at 72 deg C. Melting curve analysis was performed from 60 deg C to 97 deg C at 0.1 deg C/s to assess amplification specificity. Instrument run files indicated an annealing temperature of 60 deg C for Lactobacillus and Prevotella and 50 deg C for Bifidobacterium. Genus-specific standard curves were generated using serially diluted standards ranging from 1.5 x 10^8 to 1.2 x 10^9 nominal units. The standard curves were used for assay monitoring and quality assessment.
The inferential analysis was based on Cq values rather than GAPDH-normalized Delta Ct/Delta Delta Ct expression analysis. GAPDH was not used as a bacterial reference gene in the final revised analysis because it is a host housekeeping gene and is not an appropriate denominator for genus-level bacterial abundance in saliva. In addition, no universal bacterial 16S reference or fully validated absolute copy-number conversion was available for all targets. Therefore, results are reported as qPCR-derived Cq signals. Lower Cq values indicate higher target DNA signal. Standard-curve-derived quantity outputs and curve-quality parameters are presented as supplementary quality-control information, but no claim of absolute CFU/mL bacterial load is made. qPCR reporting was revised in accordance with core MIQE principles of transparent assay description and cautious interpretation [48].
Normality was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test [44]. Because the data were not normally distributed, continuous variables are reported as median with minimum and maximum values. Between-group comparisons were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test [45]. Pairwise post-hoc comparisons were performed using Mann-Whitney U tests with Bonferroni correction [46]. Correlation analyses among women with PCOS were performed using Spearman rank correlation. False discovery rate correction was applied to exploratory correlation analyses using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure [47].
Additional exploratory analyses were performed to support interpretation of the observed Prevotella-related findings. ROC analyses and age-adjusted regression models were retained as exploratory supplementary analyses only. These analyses were not used to establish diagnostic thresholds because the study was cross-sectional, single-center, and not designed for external biomarker validation.
The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants before data and sample collection.

3. Results

3.1. Baseline Characteristics

A total of 110 participants were included: 23 women in phenotype A, 19 in phenotype B, 22 in phenotype C, 23 in phenotype D, and 23 controls. Baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1.
Age did not differ significantly across groups (p = 0.811). Ferriman-Gallwey score differed markedly across groups (p < 0.001), as expected from phenotype definitions. Menstrual irregularity or ovulatory dysfunction and polycystic ovarian morphology on TVS also differed significantly across groups. In the corrected dataset, all participants in phenotype A had polycystic ovarian morphology on TVS, consistent with the Rotterdam phenotype A definition.

3.2. Salivary Microbial qPCR Signals Across PCOS Phenotypes and Controls

Salivary microbial Cq values across PCOS phenotypes and controls are shown in Table 2. These values should be read as qPCR-derived Cq signals; lower Cq values indicate higher target DNA signal.
Lactobacillus Cq values did not differ significantly across phenotypes and controls (p = 0.249). Prevotella Cq values differed significantly across groups (p < 0.001), with lower median Cq values in phenotypes A, B, and C than in phenotype D and controls. Because lower Cq values indicate higher target DNA signal, these findings suggest stronger Prevotella molecular signal in selected hyperandrogenic and/or PCOM-related PCOS phenotypes. Bifidobacterium Cq values also differed significantly across groups (p < 0.001), but the post-hoc pattern was less consistent than that observed for Prevotella.

3.3. Post-Hoc Pairwise Comparisons and Exploratory Discriminatory Analyses

Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed for genera with significant overall between-group differences. Significant comparisons after Bonferroni correction are summarized in Table 3; the complete pairwise comparison table is provided in the supplementary section.
For Prevotella, phenotype A, phenotype B, and phenotype C differed from phenotype D and/or controls after correction, reinforcing that the strongest phenotype-related salivary qPCR signal was observed for Prevotella. For Bifidobacterium, significant corrected differences were observed for phenotype A versus control and phenotype C versus control, but these findings were treated as secondary because Bifidobacterium assay performance was less robust in the available standard-curve files.

3.4. Exploratory Correlation Analysis Among Women with PCOS

Exploratory correlation analyses were performed among women with PCOS only (n = 87). The main findings are summarized in Table 4.
Ferriman-Gallwey score was not associated with Lactobacillus Cq values, but it correlated positively with Prevotella Cq values and negatively with Bifidobacterium Cq values. PCOM on TVS correlated negatively with Prevotella Cq values, indicating that PCOM was associated with a higher Prevotella target DNA signal. Menstrual irregularity or ovulatory dysfunction was not significantly associated with any of the three microbial Cq signals after FDR correction.

4. Discussion

This cross-sectional study examined genus-specific salivary qPCR signals of Lactobacillus, Prevotella, and Bifidobacterium across Rotterdam-defined PCOS phenotypes and controls. The revised analysis deliberately reports Cq-based microbial signals rather than absolute bacterial abundance or GAPDH-normalized expression because the available assay files did not support a uniformly robust absolute CFU/mL conversion across all targets. Within this cautious analytical frame, Prevotella showed the clearest and most interpretable phenotype-related pattern.
The main finding was that Prevotella Cq values differed significantly across PCOS phenotypes and controls. Phenotypes A, B, and C tended to show lower Prevotella Cq values than phenotype D and controls, indicating stronger Prevotella target DNA signal in selected PCOS phenotypes. This pattern is clinically plausible because these phenotypes include hyperandrogenism and/or PCOM-related features, both of which may reflect broader endocrine and inflammatory dysregulation [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,38,39,40].
The direction of the correlation findings requires careful interpretation. A positive correlation between Ferriman-Gallwey score and Prevotella Cq values means that higher hirsutism scores were associated with lower Prevotella target signal, because higher Cq reflects lower target DNA signal. In contrast, the negative correlation between PCOM on TVS and Prevotella Cq values suggests that PCOM was associated with stronger Prevotella target DNA signal. These apparently divergent associations reinforce the need to avoid simplistic claims that Prevotella is uniformly increased or decreased in PCOS.
Prevotella is biologically context-dependent. Depending on species, strain composition, diet, host metabolic status, and local mucosal ecology, Prevotella may be linked to fiber-rich dietary patterns, insulin sensitivity, or inflammatory dysbiosis [34,35,36,37]. Because the present study used genus-level qPCR rather than species-level sequencing, the data cannot determine whether the observed Prevotella signal reflects beneficial or pathogenic Prevotella taxa. This is a key reason why the finding should be framed as an exploratory molecular signal rather than a mechanistic conclusion.
The Bifidobacterium results were statistically significant overall but less stable interpretively. Some corrected group differences were observed, particularly against controls, yet the qPCR standard-curve files indicated weaker assay quality for Bifidobacterium than would be expected for confident absolute quantification. Therefore, Bifidobacterium should be treated as a secondary exploratory finding requiring technical revalidation.
A methodological strength of this study is the use of saliva as a non-invasive sample type, which is relevant for future translational studies in outpatient reproductive endocrinology. Another strength is explicit Rotterdam phenotype stratification rather than treating PCOS as a single homogeneous entity. This is important because phenotype-level differences may be diluted when all PCOS cases are pooled.
Several limitations remain. First, the cross-sectional design prevents causal or temporal inference. Second, the microbiological analysis was genus-specific and qPCR-based, without 16S rRNA gene sequencing, shotgun metagenomics, species-level resolution, or functional profiling. Third, the available standard-curve data showed variable efficiency and linearity; therefore, the revised manuscript avoids claims of absolute bacterial load. Fourth, BMI, insulin resistance, androgen biochemistry, diet, oral hygiene, periodontal status, and recent antibiotic exposure were not fully included as covariates. Fifth, no external validation cohort was available.
Despite these limitations, the study provides a useful exploratory signal: salivary Prevotella Cq values differ across Rotterdam-defined PCOS phenotypes and show associations with selected PCOS diagnostic features. The findings justify larger, technically strengthened studies incorporating standardized oral examination, dietary and metabolic covariates, validated qPCR efficiency, universal bacterial reference targets or absolute copy-number standards, and sequencing-based microbial profiling.

5. Conclusions

In this cross-sectional dataset, salivary Prevotella showed the clearest exploratory genus-level qPCR signal across Rotterdam-defined PCOS phenotypes. The revised interpretation is intentionally conservative for a Diagnostics submission: the study supports phenotype-associated variation in salivary microbial Cq signals as a candidate non-invasive diagnostic adjunct, but it does not establish Prevotella as a validated standalone diagnostic biomarker or quantify absolute bacterial load. Future studies should combine saliva-based microbial profiling with robust qPCR validation, species-level sequencing, metabolic and hormonal covariates, oral-health assessment, prespecified diagnostic thresholds, and independent validation cohorts.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at the website of this paper posted on Preprints.org: Table S1, complete pairwise post-hoc comparisons; Table S2, exploratory ROC analysis of Prevotella; Table S3, age-adjusted regression analysis; Table S4, primer sequences and qPCR conditions; Table S5, qPCR standard-curve quality-control summary.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.T. and B.S.; methodology, A.T., O.A.H., I.W.P., F.I., F.A. and B.S.; formal analysis, A.T. and O.A.H.; investigation, A.T., I.W.P. and F.I.; resources, B.S.; data curation, A.T.; writing-original draft preparation, A.T.; writing-review and editing, O.A.H., I.W.P., F.I., F.A. and B.S.; supervision, B.S.; project administration, A.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Raw qPCR output files and standard-curve reports should be retained for editorial or reviewer inspection.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the participating clinics and all study participants.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Rotterdam ESHRE/ASRM-Sponsored PCOS Consensus Workshop Group. Revised 2003 consensus on diagnostic criteria and long-term health risks related to polycystic ovary syndrome. Hum. Reprod. 2004, 19(1), 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Teede, H.J.; Tay, C.T.; Laven, J.J.E.; Dokras, A.; Moran, L.J.; Piltonen, T.T.; et al. Recommendations from the 2023 International Evidence-based Guideline for the Assessment and Management of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome. Hum. Reprod. 2023, 38(9), 1655–1679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Azziz, R.; Carmina, E.; Chen, Z.; Dunaif, A.; Laven, J.S.E.; Legro, R.S.; et al. Polycystic ovary syndrome. Nat. Rev. Dis. Prim. 2016, 2, 16057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Joham, A.E.; Norman, R.J.; Stener-Victorin, E.; Legro, R.S.; Franks, S.; Moran, L.J.; et al. Polycystic ovary syndrome. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2022, 10(9), 668–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Stener-Victorin, E.; Teede, H.; Norman, R.J.; Legro, R.; Goodarzi, M.O.; Dokras, A.; et al. Polycystic ovary syndrome. Nat. Rev. Dis. Prim. 2024, 10(1), 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Mumusoglu, S.; Yildiz, B.O. Polycystic ovary syndrome phenotypes and prevalence: differential impact of diagnostic criteria and clinical versus unselected population. Curr. Opin. Endocr. Metab. Res. 2020, 12, 66–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bozdag, G.; Mumusoglu, S.; Zengin, D.; Karabulut, E.; Yildiz, B.O. The prevalence and phenotypic features of polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum. Reprod. 2016, 31(12), 2841–2855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Daan, N.M.P.; Louwers, Y.V.; Koster, M.P.H.; Eijkemans, M.J.C.; de Rijke, Y.B.; Lentjes, E.G.W.M.; et al. Cardiovascular and metabolic profiles amongst different polycystic ovary syndrome phenotypes: who is really at risk? Fertil. Steril. 2014, 102(5), 1444–1451.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lindheim, L.; Bashir, M.; Münzker, J.; Trummer, C.; Zachhuber, V.; Leber, B.; et al. The salivary microbiome in polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and its association with disease-related parameters: a pilot study. Front Microbiol. 2016, 7, 1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sola-Leyva, A.; Pérez-Prieto, I.; Molina, N.M.; Vargas, E.; Ruiz-Durán, S.; Leonés-Baños, I.; et al. Microbial composition across body sites in polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod. BioMed Online 2023, 47(1), 129–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lindheim, L.; Bashir, M.; Münzker, J.; Trummer, C.; Zachhuber, V.; Leber, B.; et al. Alterations in gut microbiome composition and barrier function are associated with reproductive and metabolic defects in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS): a pilot study. PLoS ONE 2017, 12(1), e0168390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Torres, P.J.; Siakowska, M.; Banaszewska, B.; Pawelczyk, L.; Duleba, A.J.; Kelley, S.T.; et al. Gut microbial diversity in women with polycystic ovary syndrome correlates with hyperandrogenism. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2018, 103(4), 1502–1511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Guo, Y.; Qi, Y.; Yang, X.; Zhao, L.; Wen, S.; Liu, Y.; et al. Association between polycystic ovary syndrome and gut microbiota. PLoS ONE 2016, 11(4), e0153196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Qi, X.; Yun, C.; Sun, L.; Xia, J.; Wu, Q.; Wang, Y.; et al. Gut microbiota-bile acid-interleukin-22 axis orchestrates polycystic ovary syndrome. Nat. Med. 2019, 25(8), 1225–1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Parker, J.; O’Brien, C.; Hawrelak, J. A narrative review of the role of gastrointestinal dysbiosis in the pathogenesis of polycystic ovary syndrome. Obstet. Gynecol. Sci. 2022, 65(1), 14–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Thackray, V.G. Sex, microbes, and polycystic ovary syndrome. Trends Endocrinol. Metab. 2019, 30(1), 54–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Lu, C.; Wang, H.; Yang, J.; Zhang, X.; Chen, Y.; Feng, R.; et al. Changes in vaginal microbiome diversity in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Front Cell Infect. Microbiol. 2021, 11, 755741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. He, F.; Li, Y. The gut microbial composition in polycystic ovary syndrome with insulin resistance: findings from a normal-weight population. J. Ovarian Res. 2021, 14(1), 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Zhou, L.; Ni, Z.; Cheng, W.; Yu, J.; Sun, S.; Zhai, D.; et al. Characteristic gut microbiota and predicted metabolic functions in women with PCOS. Endocr. Connect. 2020, 9(1), 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Yu, Z.; Qin, E.; Cheng, S.; Yang, H.; Liu, R.; Xu, T.; et al. Gut microbiome in PCOS associates to serum metabolomics: a cross-sectional study. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 22184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Guo, J.; Shao, J.; Yang, Y.; Niu, X.; Liao, J.; Zhao, Q.; et al. Gut microbiota in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review. Reprod. Sci. 2022, 29(1), 69–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Min, Q.; Geng, H.; Gao, Q.; Xu, M. The association between gut microbiome and PCOS: evidence from meta-analysis and two-sample Mendelian randomization. Front Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1203902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Suturina, L.; Belkova, N.; Igumnov, I.; Lazareva, L.; Danusevich, I.; Nadeiaeva, I.; et al. Polycystic ovary syndrome and gut microbiota: phenotype matters. Life 2023, 13(1), 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Li, M.; Chang, Q.; Luo, Y.; Pan, J.; Hu, Y.; Liu, B.; et al. The gut microbial composition in polycystic ovary syndrome with hyperandrogenemia and its association with steroid hormones. Front Cell Dev. Biol. 2024, 12, 1384233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Yang, Y.; Cheng, J.; Liu, C.; Zhang, X.; Ma, N.; Zhou, Z.; et al. Gut microbiota in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: an individual based analysis of publicly available data. EClinicalMedicine 2024, 77, 102884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Sun, J.; Wang, M.; Kan, Z. Causal relationship between gut microbiota and polycystic ovary syndrome: a literature review and Mendelian randomization study. Front Endocrinol. 2024, 15, 1280983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Talebi, S.; Zeraattalab-Motlagh, S.; Jalilpiran, Y.; Payandeh, N.; Ansari, S.; Mohammadi, H.; et al. The effects of pro-, pre-, and synbiotics supplementation on polycystic ovary syndrome: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. Front Nutr. 2023, 10, 1178842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mehta, P.; Saha, D.; Das, A.; Das, B.K. Gut microbiota in diabetic-linked polycystic ovarian syndrome: mechanisms and therapeutic insights. Tissue Cell. 2025, 95, 102870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Senthilkumar, H.; Arumugam, M. Gut microbiota: a hidden player in polycystic ovary syndrome. J. Transl. Med. 2025, 23(1), 443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Li, J.; Qiao, J.; Li, Y.; Qin, G.; Xu, Y.; Lao, K.; et al. Metabolic disorders in polycystic ovary syndrome: from gut microbiota biodiversity to clinical intervention. Front Endocrinol. 2025, 16, 1526468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhao, M.; Chen, D.; Hu, X.; Xie, C.; Xu, L.; Zhou, F. Gut-ovary axis in polycystic ovary syndrome: mechanistic insights and gut microbiota-targeted therapeutic strategies. Front Endocrinol. 2025, 16, 1684492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Anderson, R.C.; Cookson, A.L.; McNabb, W.C.; Park, Z.; McCann, M.J.; Kelly, W.J.; et al. Lactobacillus plantarum MB452 enhances the function of the intestinal barrier by increasing the expression levels of genes involved in tight junction formation. BMC Microbiol. 2010, 10, 316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Mujagic, Z.; de Vos, P.; Boekschoten, M.V.; Govers, C.; Pieters, H.J.H.M.; de Wit, N.J.W.; et al. The effects of Lactobacillus plantarum on small intestinal barrier function and mucosal gene transcription: a randomized double-blind placebo controlled trial. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 40128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Kovatcheva-Datchary, P.; Nilsson, A.; Akrami, R.; Lee, Y.S.; De Vadder, F.; Arora, T.; et al. Dietary fiber-induced improvement in glucose metabolism is associated with increased abundance of Prevotella. Cell Metab. 2015, 22(6), 971–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Pedersen, H.K.; Gudmundsdottir, V.; Nielsen, H.B.; Hyötyläinen, T.; Nielsen, T.; Jensen, B.A.H.; et al. Human gut microbes impact host serum metabolome and insulin sensitivity. Nature 2016, 535(7612), 376–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. De Filippis, F.; Pasolli, E.; Tett, A.; Tarallo, S.; Naccarati, A.; De Angelis, M.; et al. Distinct genetic and functional traits of human intestinal Prevotella copri strains are associated with different habitual diets. Cell Host Microbe 2019, 25(3), 444–453.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Precup, G.; Vodnar, D.C. Gut Prevotella as a possible biomarker of diet and its eubiotic versus dysbiotic roles: a comprehensive literature review. Br. J. Nutr. 2019, 122(2), 131–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Shabbir, S.; Khurram, E.; Moorthi, V.S.; Mistry, V.; Butler, A.E.; Abu-Farha, M. The interplay between androgens and the immune response in polycystic ovary syndrome. J. Transl. Med. 2023, 21(1), 259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Schüler-Toprak, S.; Ortmann, O.; Buechler, C.; Treeck, O. The complex roles of adipokines in polycystic ovary syndrome and endometriosis. Biomedicines 2022, 10(10), 2503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Liu, J.; Liu, Y.; Li, X. Effects of intestinal flora on polycystic ovary syndrome. Front Endocrinol. 2023, 14, 1151723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lundmark, A.; Hu, Y.O.O.; Huss, M.; Johannsen, G.; Andersson, A.F.; Yucel-Lindberg, T. Identification of salivary microbiota and its association with host inflammatory mediators in periodontitis. Front Cell Infect. Microbiol. 2019, 9, 216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Ferriman, D.; Gallwey, J.D. Clinical assessment of body hair growth in women. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 1961, 21(11), 1440–1447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Greene, J.C.; Vermillion, J.R. The simplified oral hygiene index. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 1964, 68, 7–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Shapiro, S.S.; Wilk, M.B. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 1965, 52(3-4), 591–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kruskal, W.H.; Wallis, W.A. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1952, 47(260), 583–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mann, H.B.; Whitney, D.R. On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Ann. Math. Stat. 1947, 18(1), 50–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Benjamini, Y.; Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol. 1995, 57(1), 289–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bustin, S.A.; Benes, V.; Garson, J.A.; Hellemans, J.; Huggett, J.; Kubista, M.; et al. The MIQE guidelines: minimum information for publication of quantitative real-time PCR experiments. Clin. Chem. 2009, 55(4), 611–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of study participants. 
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of study participants. 
Characteristic Phenotype A
(n=23)
Phenotype B
(n=19)
Phenotype C
(n=22)
Phenotype D
(n=23)
Control
(n=23)
p-value
Sample size, n 23 19 22 23 23 -
Age, years 28 (19-40) 29 (22-38) 28 (18-42) 30 (21-40) 29 (20-38) 0.811
Ferriman-Gallwey score 8.0 (5.0-18.0) 7.0 (5.0-12.0) 6.5 (5.0-14.0) 3.0 (0.0-4.0) 0.0 (0.0-2.0) <0.001
Menstrual irregularity or ovulatory dysfunction, n (%) 23 (100.0) 19 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 23 (100.0) 0 (0.0) <0.001
Polycystic ovarian morphology on TVS, n (%) 23 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 22 (100.0) 23 (100.0) 0 (0.0) <0.001
Continuous data are presented as median (minimum-maximum), while categorical data are presented as n (%). p-values for continuous variables were obtained using the Kruskal-Wallis test, and categorical variables were compared using appropriate exact/non-parametric procedures. TVS, transvaginal sonography.
Table 2. qPCR-derived salivary microbial Cq values across PCOS phenotypes and controls. 
Table 2. qPCR-derived salivary microbial Cq values across PCOS phenotypes and controls. 
Microbiota Phenotype A
(n = 23)
Phenotype B
(n = 19)
Phenotype C
(n = 22)
Phenotype D
(n = 23)
Control
(n = 23)
p-value
Lactobacillus 32.50
(12.34–36.82)
34.46
(27.84–37.22)
35.42
(11.76–36.98)
34.46
(26.64–37.00)
35.59
(27.74–36.85)
0.249
Prevotella 22.32
(19.11–35.68)
21.42
(18.70–35.95)
24.28
(18.21–32.20)
31.00
(19.44–37.03)
28.43
(20.54–36.77)
<0.001
Bifidobacterium 36.77
(27.94–37.25)
36.44
(11.76–37.16)
36.64
(35.35–37.09)
35.71
(31.96–37.13)
35.71
(5.92–37.01)
<0.001
Values are presented as median Cq (minimum-maximum). Lower Cq values indicate higher target DNA signal. p-values were obtained using the Kruskal-Wallis test. The values are not reported as absolute CFU/mL bacterial loads.
Table 3. Significant post-hoc pairwise comparisons after Bonferroni correction. 
Table 3. Significant post-hoc pairwise comparisons after Bonferroni correction. 
Microbiota Comparison Raw p-value Bonferroni-adjusted p-value Interpretation
Prevotella Phenotype A vs Phenotype D <0.001 0.010 Significant
Prevotella Phenotype A vs Control <0.001 0.010 Significant
Prevotella Phenotype B vs Phenotype D <0.001 0.010 Significant
Prevotella Phenotype B vs Control <0.001 0.010 Significant
Prevotella Phenotype C vs Phenotype D 0.002 0.020 Significant
Prevotella Phenotype C vs Control 0.004 0.040 Significant
Bifidobacterium Phenotype A vs Control <0.001 0.010 Significant
Bifidobacterium Phenotype C vs Control <0.001 0.010 Significant
Pairwise comparisons were performed following the Kruskal-Wallis test. Only comparisons that remained significant after Bonferroni correction are shown. Complete post-hoc results are provided in Supplementary Table S1.
Table 4. Correlation between diagnostic PCOS features and salivary microbial Cq signals among women with PCOS. 
Table 4. Correlation between diagnostic PCOS features and salivary microbial Cq signals among women with PCOS. 
Clinical variable Microbiota n Spearman rho Raw p-value FDR-adjusted p-value Interpretation
Ferriman–Gallwey score Lactobacillus 87 0.040 0.712 0.937 Not significant
Ferriman–Gallwey score Prevotella 87 0.423 <0.001 <0.001 Significant
Ferriman–Gallwey score Bifidobacterium 87 -0.283 0.008 0.023 Significant
Menstrual irregularity/ovulatory dysfunction Lactobacillus 87 0.125 0.247 0.557 Not significant
Menstrual irregularity/ovulatory dysfunction Prevotella 87 -0.015 0.892 0.937 Not significant
Menstrual irregularity/ovulatory dysfunction Bifidobacterium 87 0.103 0.342 0.615 Not significant
PCOM on TVS Lactobacillus 87 0.009 0.937 0.937 Not significant
PCOM on TVS Prevotella 87 -0.302 0.005 0.020 Significant
PCOM on TVS Bifidobacterium 87 0.019 0.860 0.937 Not significant
Correlation analysis was performed using Spearman rank correlation. Menstrual irregularity/ovulatory dysfunction and PCOM on TVS were coded as binary variables. Lower Cq values indicate higher target DNA signal; therefore, the direction of rho should be interpreted in relation to Cq, not absolute bacterial abundance.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

Subscribe

Accessibility

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

Privacy Settings

© 2026 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated