Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29558527›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

DNA metabarcoding uncovers fungal diversity of mixed airborne samples in Italy.

Elisa Banchi, Claudio Gennaro Ametrano, David Stanković, Pierluigi Verardo, Olga Moretti, Francesca Gabrielli, Stefania Lazzarin, Maria Francesca Borney, Francesca Tassan, Mauro Tretiach and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Fungal Allergen and Mold Allergy Diagnosis: Role and Relevance ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Current and Future Pathotyping Platforms forPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Review
  10. DNA barcoding of phytopathogens for disease diagnostics and bio-surveillance.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2021
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Elisa BanchiDepartment of Life Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
Claudio Gennaro AmetranoDepartment of Life Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
David StankovićDepartment of Life Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
Pierluigi VerardoRegional Agency for Environmental Protection Friuli Venezia Giulia, Department of Pordenone, Pordenone, Italy.
Olga MorettiRegional Agency for Environmental Protection Umbria, Terni, Italy.
Francesca GabrielliRegional Agency for Environmental Protection Marche, Ascoli Piceno, Italy.
Stefania LazzarinRegional Agency for Environmental Protection Veneto, Vicenza, Italy.
Maria Francesca BorneyRegional Agency for Environmental Protection Valle d'Aosta, Saint-Christophe, Italy.
Francesca TassanRegional Agency for Environmental Protection Friuli Venezia Giulia, Department of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
Mauro TretiachDepartment of Life Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
Alberto PallaviciniDepartment of Life Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
Lucia MuggiaDepartment of Life Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0390-6169

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fungal spores and mycelium fragments are particles which become and remain airborne and have been subjects of aerobiological studies. The presence and the abundance of taxa in aerobiological samples can be very variable and impaired by changeable climatic conditions. Because many fungi produce mycotoxins and both their mycelium fragments and spores are potential allergens, monitoring the presence of these taxa is of key importance. So far data on exposure and sensitization to fungal allergens are mainly based on the assessment of few, easily identifiable taxa and focused only on certain environments. The microscopic method used to analyze aerobiological samples and the inconspicuous fungal characters do not allow a in depth taxonomical identification. Here, we present a first assessment of fungal diversity from airborne samples using a DNA metabarcoding analysis. The nuclear ITS2 region was selected as barcode to catch fungal diversity in mixed airborne samples gathered during two weeks in four sites of North-Eastern and Central Italy. We assessed the taxonomic composition and diversity within and among the sampled sites and compared the molecular data with those obtained by traditional microscopy. The molecular analyses provide a tenfold more comprehensive determination of the taxa than the traditional morphological inspections. Our results prove that the metabarcoding analysis is a promising approach to increases quality and sensitivity of the aerobiological monitoring. The laboratory and bioinformatic workflow implemented here is now suitable for routine, high-throughput, regional analyses of airborne fungi.

Indexed as

Air MicrobiologyAllergensCell NucleusDNA Barcoding, TaxonomicDNA, FungalDNA, Ribosomal SpacerFungiGenetic VariationGeographyHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansItalySpecies SpecificitySpores, FungalAllergensDNA, FungalDNA, Ribosomal Spacer

Identifiers

PMID29558527
PMCPMC5860773

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.