IADVL
Indexed with PubMed and Science Citation Index (E) 
 
Users online: 157 
     Home | Feedback | Login 
About Current Issue Archive Ahead of print Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe What's New Contact  
  Navigate here 
  Search
 
   Next article
   Previous article 
   Table of Contents
  
 Resource links
   Similar in PUBMED
    Search Pubmed for
    Search in Google Scholar for
   Article in PDF (126 KB)
   Citation Manager
   Access Statistics
   Reader Comments
   Email Alert *
   Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
   Pathogenesis
   Morphology
   Clinical signifi...
   References
   Article Figures

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed11286    
    Printed118    
    Emailed5    
    PDF Downloaded604    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
RESIDENT'S PAGE
Year : 2006  |  Volume : 72  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 392-393

Clue cell


Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprosy, Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana - 141 001, Punjab, India

Correspondence Address:
Silonie Sachdeva
1312, Urban Estate, Phase-1, Jalandhar - 144 022, Punjab
India
Login to access the Email id


DOI: 10.4103/0378-6323.27768

PMID: 17050945

Get Permissions



How to cite this article:
Sachdeva S. Clue cell. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2006;72:392-3

How to cite this URL:
Sachdeva S. Clue cell. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol [serial online] 2006 [cited 2014 Oct 20];72:392-3. Available from: http://www.ijdvl.com/text.asp?2006/72/5/392/27768


Clue cells are vaginal squamous epithelial cells coated with the anaerobic gram-variable coccobacilli Gardnerella vaginalis and other anaerobic bacteria causing bacterial vaginosis. Clue cells were first described by Gardner and Dukes[1] in 1955 and were so named as these cells give an important "clue" to the diagnosis of bacterial vaginosis. A clue cell can be detected on simple wet mount of vaginal secretions. To be significant for bacterial vaginosis (BV), more than 20% of the epithelial cells on the wet mount should be clue cells.


  Pathogenesis Top


Clue cell phenomenon is attributed to the attachment of adherent strains[2] of G. vaginalis in large numbers to exfoliated epithelial cells of the vagina in presence of an elevated pH. The increase in vaginal pH occurs due to alteration in normal flora characterized by a decrease in lactobacilli and increase in bacteria such as G. vaginalis ,Mycoplasma hominis and anaerobes as Mobiluncus, Bacteroides and Peptostreptococcus species. Lactobacilli help to maintain the acidic pH of healthy vagina and inhibit the growth of anaerobic microorganisms through elaboration of hydrogen peroxide.[3] Factors causing the change in flora are poorly understood. Postulates[4] include the menstrual cycle, concomitant infections, sexual activity, contraceptive methods and antibiotic use. An increase in the local pH favors the growth of bacteria causing BV. The bacteria adhere to the surface of epithelial cells leading to formation of clue cells. Lytic cellular changes are induced by the organisms on clue cells by production of enzymes such as sialidases (neuraminidases) allowing the bacteria to invade and destroy the cells.


  Morphology Top


The clue cells can be demonstrated by microscopic examination of vaginal wet mount preparation. From the speculum, an appropriate amount of vaginal discharge is transferred on the glass slide and a droplet of normal saline is added directly. The preparation is covered with a coverslip and examined under the light microscope at 100x (low power) and 400x (high power) magnifications. The normal vaginal squamous epithelial cells have distinct cell margins and lack granularity [Figure - 1]. Clue cells are seen as squamous epithelial cells with large number of coccobacillary organisms, densely attached in clusters to their surfaces giving them a granular appearance. The cytoplasm appears fuzzy (like shading with black pencil) and the edges of the squamous epithelial cells, which normally have a sharply defined cell border, become indistinct or stippled [Figure - 2]. Polymorpho nuclear leukocytes (PMNs) can also be demonstrated on the normal vaginal wet mount preparation. The vaginal discharge of patients with BV is notable for its lack of PMNs, typically 1 or less than 1 PMN per vaginal epithelial cell.


  Clinical significance Top


Detection of clue cells is the most useful single procedure for the diagnosis of BV. Bacterial vaginosis accounts for 10 to 30% of the cases of infectious vaginitis[5] in women of childbearing age and presents with malodorous vaginal discharge and vulvar irritation. Presence of clue cells (more than 20%) in vaginal discharge is included in Amsel's[6] criteria for the diagnosis of BV. Other criteria for the diagnosis of BV include: milky, homogeneous, adherent discharge; vaginal pH greater than 4.5; positive whiff test i.e., typical fishy odor on addition of one or two drops of 10% KOH to vaginal discharge and "few or no lactobacilli". The presence of three of the above five is considered diagnostic. The sensitivity and specificity of more than 20% clue cells on wet mount[7] for diagnosis of BV is 81% and 99%. Identification of clue cells can also be done on Papanicolaou smear sampled from the posterior fornix with the sensitivity[8] and specificity of 90% and 97%.

The presence of clue cells in vaginal discharge has also been used to predict postoperative infections[9] after abdominal hysterectomy. Women with positive clue cell detection in air-dried vaginal smears have been found to be at increased risk of postoperative vaginal cuff infections and wound infections.

 
  References Top

1.Gardner HL, Dukes CD. Haemophilus vaginalis vaginitis. A newly defined specific infection previously classified ''Nonspecific'' vaginitis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1955;69:962-76.  Back to cited text no. 1    
2.Scott TG, Smyth CJ, Keane CT. In vitro adhesiveness and biotype of Gardnerella vaginalis strains in relation to the occurrence of clue cells in vaginal discharges. Genitourin Med 1987;63:47-53.  Back to cited text no. 2  [PUBMED]  
3.Eschenbach DA, Davick PR, Williams BL, Klebanoff SJ, Young-Smith K, Critchlow CM, et al . Prevalence of hydrogen peroxide-producing Lactobacillus species in normal women and women with bacterial vaginosis. J Clin Microbiol 1989;27:251-6.  Back to cited text no. 3    
4.Saidi SA, Mandal D, Curless E. Bacterial vaginosis in a district genitourinary medicine department: Significance of vaginal microbiology and anaerobes. Int J STD AIDS 1994:5:405-8.   Back to cited text no. 4  [PUBMED]  
5.Sobel JD. Vaginitis. New Engl J Med 1997;337:1896-903.  Back to cited text no. 5  [PUBMED]  
6.Amsel R, Totten PA, Spiegel CA, Chen KC, Eschenbach D, Holmes KK. Nonspecific vaginitis. Diagnostic criteria and microbial and epidemiologic associations. Am J Med 1983;74:14-22.  Back to cited text no. 6  [PUBMED]  
7.Chandeying V, Skov S, Kemapunmanus M, Law M, Geater A, Rowe P. Evaluation of two clinical protocols for the management of women with vaginal discharge in southern Thailand. Sex Transm Infect 1998;74:194-201.  Back to cited text no. 7  [PUBMED]  
8.Platz-Christensen JJ, Larsson PG, Sundstrom E, Bondeson L. Detection of bacterial vaginosis in Papanicolaou smears. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989;160:132-3.  Back to cited text no. 8  [PUBMED]  
9.Larsson PG, Platz-Christensen JJ, Forsum U, Pahlson C. Clue cells in predicting infections after abdominal hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 1991;77:450-2.  Back to cited text no. 9  [PUBMED]  


    Figures

[Figure - 1], [Figure - 2]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
Previous article Next article

    

Online since 15th March '04
Published by Medknow