ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology2025
Quantification of airborne fungal antigens by ELISA and comparison to molecular biological and classical methods.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Bibliographic Review of Airborne Fungal Allergens from Dominant and Undercharacterized Genera.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Sporecasting Biogeography Across Scales: Continental Patterns and Local Constraints on Macrofungal Dispersal.Molecular ecology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
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
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.