Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40668012›Full record

ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology2025

Quantification of airborne fungal antigens by ELISA and comparison to molecular biological and classical methods.

C-E Pogner, M Gorfer, M Raulf, J Strauss, I Sander

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Applied and environmental microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

C-E PognerBioresources, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Tulln, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-0627-6158
M GorferBioresources, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Tulln, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-3010-6044
M RaulfInstitute of the Ruhr-University Bochum (IPA), Institute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance, Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6315-120X
J StraussInstitute of Microbial Genetics, Department of Applied Genetics and Cell Biology, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Tulln, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-0474-6267
I SanderInstitute of the Ruhr-University Bochum (IPA), Institute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance, Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5014-4112

Funding

DGUV Forschungsförderung FP-0431AInstitute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance IPA-154 BioaerosoleInstiute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance IPA-154 Bioaerosole
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Airborne fungal spores are recognized for their human health impact, yet dose-response relationships remain undefined despite decades of bioaerosol sampling and analysis. In this article, we quantify immunologically active compounds, using six fungal-specific enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) and compare them with cultivation, spore counting, and quantitative PCR (qPCR), using identical filter extract aliquots, various concentrations, single-organism aerosols, and mixes, in a controlled environment. Results showed high agreement between ELISAs and spore counting. By contrast, CFU enumeration and qPCR showed lower correlation with the other methods. Results of ELISAs showed high reproducibility of technical replicates and sampling duplicates, whereas CFU and qPCR results had high deviations. ELISA detection limits ranged from 10 to 100 spores/mL for larger spores ( IMPORTANCE: Bioaerosol detection and analysis is an ongoing field of research. Although various methodologies are used for collection and analysis, there is no single method available to close the knowledge gap between exposure and health impact. For airborne fungal material, the standard analysis method remains cultivation. With molecular technology advancing in the field, both methods can only show the exposure to living, cultivatable, or total fungal cells in the airborne environment. To close the gap between airborne concentrations and impact on the human body, recognition of the allergenic potential is necessary. Therefore, we evaluated six fungal-specific ELISAs to make them ready for application in field studies and compared them to cultivation, spore counting, and molecular genetic methods. We are confident that in the future antigen-recognizing methods like the tested ELISAs will enable moving from particle detection toward detection of the disease-causing agent.

Indexed as

Air MicrobiologyAntigens, FungalFungiAspergillusEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayHumansReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionSpores, FungalAntigens, Fungalbioaerosol chamberbioaerosolscolony-forming unitsfiltration samplingimmunoassayqPCRspore counts

Identifiers

PMID40668012
PMCPMC12366363

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.