Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 300, Issue 3, pp 641–645 | Cite as

Influence of a mannose-binding lectin gene polymorphism and exposure to Chlamydia trachomatis on fallopian tube obstruction in Brazilian woman

  • Joao G. Vinagre
  • Steven S. WitkinEmail author
  • Sergio C. Ribeiro
  • Renata Robial
  • Eiko I. Fukazawa
  • Carla C. Ortolani
  • Edmund C. Baracat
  • Iara M. Linhares
General Gynecology



Factors influencing fallopian tube occlusion in women with a lower genital tract infection remain incompletely elucidated. We evaluated whether a polymorphism in the mannose-binding lectin (MBL) gene at codon 54 influences the occurrence of fallopian tube blockage in relation to exposure to Chlamydia trachomatis.


In a case–control study at The Hospital das Clínicas, University of São Paulo, Brazil, 75 women with hysterosalpingography-documented tubal occlusion and 75 women with patent fallopian tubes were analyzed for detection of single-nucleotide polymorphism in codon 54 of the MBL gene and for IgG anti-C. trachomatis antibodies in their sera. Both groups were matched for age, race, and sexual variables.


Prior exposure to C. trachomatis, as evidenced by the presence of IgG antibodies, was comparable in both groups. Detection of the polymorphic MBL allele was more prevalent in women with blocked tubes (p < 0.01), regardless of whether or not there was evidence of prior chlamydial exposure.


The level of MBL-related innate immunity influences the consequences of infection by C. trachomatis or other microbes.


Chlamydia trachomatis Fallopian tube occlusion Genetic polymorphism Innate immunity Mannose-binding lectin 


Author contribution

JGV, SCR, IML: trial conception and design, wrote original draft. EIF, RR, JGV, CCO: patient recruitment, sample collection, initial data analysis. IML, SSW: final data analysis and interpretation, wrote final version of manuscript. IML, ECB: study supervision.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of Interest

None of the authors report any conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Kodaman PH, Arici A, Seli E (2004) Evidence-based diagnosis and management of tubal factor infertility. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 16(3):221–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Exacoustos C, Zupi E, Szabolcs B, Amoroso C, Di Giovanni A, Romanini ME et al (2009) Contrast-tuned imaging and second generation contrast agent SonoVue: a new ultrasound approach to evaluation of tubal patency. J Minimally Invasive Gynecol 16(4):437–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Perquin DAM, Beersma MFC, de Craen AJM, Helmerhost FM (2007) The value of Chlamydia trachomatis-specific IgG antibody testing and hysterosalpingography for predicting tubal pathology and occurrence of pregnancy. Fertil Steril 88(1):224–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mardh PA (2004) Tubal factor infertility, with special regard to chlamydial salpingitis. Curr Opin Infect Dis 17(1):49–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Halbrecht I (1946) Unsuspected genital tuberculosis as a major cause of tubal occusion. Lancet 1(6390):235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Linhares IM, Witkin SS (2010) Immunopathogenic consequences of Chlamydia trachomatis 60kDa heat shock protein expression in the female reproductive tract. Cell Stress Chaperones 15(5):467–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brunham RC, Pourbohloul B, Maks S, White R, Rekart ML (2005) The unexpected impact of a Chlamydia trachomatis infection control program on susceptibility to reinfection. J Infect Dis 192(10):1836–1844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Swanson AF, Ezekowitz RA, Lee A, Kuo CC (1998) Human mannose-binding protein inhibits infection of HeLa cells by Chlamydia trachomatis. Infect Immun 66(4):1607–1612Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Debattista J, Timms P, Allan J (2003) Immunopathogenesis of Chlamydia trachomatis infections in women. Fertil Steril 79(6):1273–1287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tsevat DG, Weisenfeld HC, Parks C, Peipert JF (2017) Sexually transmitted diseases and infertility. Am J Obstet Gynecol 216(1):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sziller I, Babula O, Ujhazy A, Nagy B, Hupuczi P, Papp Z et al (2007) Chlamydia trachomatis infection, Fallopian tube damage and a mannose-binding lectin codon 54 gene polymorphism. Hum Reprod 22(7):1861–1865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ip WKE, Takahashi K, Ezekowitz RA, Stuart LM (2009) Mannose-binding lectin and innate immunity. Immunol Rev 230:9–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Klein NJ (2005) Mannose-binding lectin: do we need it? Mol Immunol 42(8):919–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Garred P, Larsen F, Seyfarth J, Fujita R, Madsen HO (2006) Mannose-binding lectin and its genetic variants. Genes Immun 7(2):85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Turner MW (2004) The role of mannose-binding lectin in health and disease. Netherlands Med J 62(3):4–9Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Babula O, Lazdane G, Kroica J, Ledger WJ, Witkin SS (2003) Relation between recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis, vaginal concentrations of mannose-binding lectin, and a mannose-binding lectin gene polymorphism in Latvian women. Clin Infect Dis 37(5):733–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wojitani M, de Aguiar LM, Baracat EC, Linhares IM (2012) Association between mannose-binding lectin and interleukin 1 receptor antagonist gene polymorphisms and recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 285(1):149–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Babula O, Danielsson I, Sjoberg I, Ledger WJ, Witkin SS (2004) Altered distribution of mannose-binding lectin alleles at exon 1 codon 54 in women with vulvar vestibulitis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191(3):762–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsUniversity of Sao Paulo Medical SchoolSao PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyWeill Cornell MedicineNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Institute of Tropical MedicineUniversity of Sao Paulo Medical SchoolSao PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations