Visitors   Views   Downloads
NOT PEER-REVIEWED
"PeerJ Preprints" is a venue for early communication or feedback before peer review. Data may be preliminary.

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

View peer-reviewed version

Supplemental Information

Supplementary Table 1. Nucleotide sequences of all 183 phylotypes determined using Illumina-based amplicon deep-sequencing and their phylogenetic assignment

Phylotype number is a unique number to designate each annotated operational taxonomic unit in this study. Annotation refers to the highest taxonomic level to which an phylotype could be annotated by comparison with sequences available through the Ribosomal Database Project and the NCBI database.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.1269v2/supp-1

Figure S1. Rarefaction curves illustrating sampling depth

Phylotype number is a unique number used in this study corresponding to defined amplicon sequence as listed in Supplementary Table 1. For each endometrial community (subsequent columns) the relative abundances of those phylotypes is listed as a percentage.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.1269v2/supp-2

Supplementary Figure 1. Rarefaction curves

Rarefaction curves were generated using the vegan package from the R program and show that saturation was reached at >15,000 reads per sample, and hence sufficient for all samples.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.1269v2/supp-3

Additional Information

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author Contributions

Hans Verstraelen conceived and designed the experiments, analyzed the data, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, conceived of the study, obtained ethical approval, coordinated the research.

Ramiro Vilchez-Vargas analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Fabian Desimpel performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Ruy Jauregui contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Nele Vankeirsbilck reviewed drafts of the paper, recruited patients.

Steven Weyers conceived and designed the experiments, reviewed drafts of the paper, recruited patients.

Rita Verhelst conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Petra De Sutter conceived and designed the experiments, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Dietmar H Pieper conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Tom Van De Wiele conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Human Ethics

The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):

Ethical approval was obtained from the Ghent University Hospital Institutional Review Board (Principal Investigator: Hans Verstraelen).

The Ghent University Hospital Institutional Review Board assigned the study reference number EC2013/053.

Data Deposition

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

Supplementary Table 1. Nucleotide sequences of all 183 phylotypes determined using Illumina-based amplicon deep-sequencing and their phylogenetic assignment.

Supplementary Table 2. Relative abundances of the 183 phylotypes in the distinct uterine communites (n = 19)

Funding

The authors received no funding for this work. At the time of the study conduct, Dr. R. Vilchez-Vargas was supported as a postdoctoral fellow by the Belgian Science Policy Office (BELSPO). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.


Add your feedback

Before adding feedback, consider if it can be asked as a question instead, and if so then use the Question tab. Pointing out typos is fine, but authors are encouraged to accept only substantially helpful feedback.

Some Markdown syntax is allowed: _italic_ **bold** ^superscript^ ~subscript~ %%blockquote%% [link text](link URL)
 
By posting this you agree to PeerJ's commenting policies