Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32110484›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2020

Comparison of the performance of ITS1 and ITS2 as barcodes in amplicon-based sequencing of bioaerosols.

Hamza Mbareche, Marc Veillette, Guillaume Bilodeau, Caroline Duchaine

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing 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

54 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. First Report on Antifungal Activity ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Protein Coding Low-CopyEcology and evolution · 2025
    Article
  14. Pomegranate Woody Mycobiota Associated with Wood Decay.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Hamza MbarecheInstitut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.
Marc VeilletteInstitut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.
Guillaume BilodeauCanadian Food Inspection Agency, Pathogen Identification Research Lab, Ottawa, Canada.
Caroline DuchaineInstitut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper presents the performance of two eukaryotic genomic ribosomal regions, ITS1 and ITS2, in describing fungal diversity in aerosol samples using amplicon-based High-Throughput Sequencing (HTS). Composting sites, biomethanization facilities, and dairy farms, all affected by the presence of fungi, were visited to collect air samples. The amplicon-based HTS approach is a target enrichment method that relies on the amplification of a specific target using particular primers before sequencing. Thus, the results are highly dependent on the quality of amplification. For this reason, the authors of this paper used a shotgun metagenomic approach to compare its outcome with the amplicon-based method. Indeed, shotgun metagenomic does not rely on any amplification prior to sequencing, because all genes are sequenced without a specific target. In addition, culture methods were added to the analyses in biomethanization and dairy farms samples to validate their contribution to fungal diversity of aerosols. The results obtained are unequivocal towards ITS1 outperformance to ITS2 in terms of richness, and taxonomic coverage. The differential abundance analysis did demonstrate that some taxa were exclusively detected only by ITS2, and vice-versa for ITS1. However, the shotgun metagenomic approach showed a taxonomic profile more resembling to ITS1 than ITS2. Based on these results, neither of the barcodes evaluated is perfect in terms of distinguishing all species. Using both barcodes offers a broader view of the fungal aerosol population. However, with the actual knowledge, the authors strongly recommend using ITS1 as a universal fungal barcode for quick general analyses of diversity and when limited financial resources are available, primarily due its ability to capture taxonomic profiles similar to those obtained using the shotgun metagenomic. The culture comparison with amplicon-based sequencing showed the complementarity of both approaches in describing the most abundant taxa.

Indexed as

BarcodesBioaerosolsFungiHigh-throughput sequencingITS1ITS2

Identifiers

PMID32110484
PMCPMC7032056

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.