ArticlePeerJ2021
Detection and monitoring of insect traces in bioaerosols.
Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Environmental DNA and Bulk DNA Metabarcoding for Assessing Terrestrial Arthropod Diversity Across Three Habitat Types on Guam.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Article
- Swab vs rollers: a comparison of methods to collect eDNA from vegetative surfaces.BMC research notes · 2026Article
- Airborne eDNA captures three decades of ecosystem biodiversity.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Biomonitoring 2.0 Refined: observing local change through metaphylogeography using a community-based eDNA metabarcoding monitoring network.BMC biology · 2025Article
- First national survey of terrestrial biodiversity using airborne eDNA.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Three steps towards comparability and standardization among molecular methods for characterizing insect communities.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024Article
- AirDNA sampler: An efficient and simple device enabling high-yield, high-quality airborne environment DNA for metagenomic applications.PloS one · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Studies on bioaerosols have primarily focused on their chemical and biological compositions and their impact on public health and the ecosystem. However, most bioaerosol studies have only focused on viruses, bacteria, fungi, and pollen. To assess the diversity and composition of airborne insect material in particulate matter (PM) for the first time, we attempted to detect DNA traces of insect origin in dust samples collected over a two-year period. These samples were systematically collected at one-month intervals and categorized into two groups, PM2.5 and PM10, based on the aerodynamic diameter of the aerosol particles. Cytochrome-c oxidase I (COI) was the barcoding region used to identify the origins of the extracted DNA. The airborne insect community in these samples was analyzed using the Illumina MiSeq platform. The most abundant insect sequences belonged to the order Hemiptera (true bugs), whereas order Diptera were also detected in both PM2.5 and PM10 samples. Additionally, we inferred the presence of particulates of insect origin, such as brochosomes and integument particles, using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). This provided additional confirmation of the molecular results. In this study, we demonstrated the benefits of detection and monitoring of insect information in bioaerosols for understanding the source and composition. Our results suggest that the PM2.5 and PM10 groups are rich in insect diversity. Lastly, the development of databases can improve the identification accuracy of the analytical results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.