ArticleFungal biology and biotechnology2026
A scalable PDMS extraction method for profiling fungal volatile compounds.
Article in Fungal biology and biotechnology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFungal volatile organic compounds (FVOCs) play key roles in fungal ecology, physiology, and biotechnological applications, but inconsistent sampling and analytical methods limit biological interpretation and cross-study comparability, underscoring the need for a standardized, validated workflow.
resultsWe developed and validated a polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS)-based volatilomics workflow and evaluated its performance across key methodological dimensions, including solvent extraction bias, static versus dynamic sampling, sorbent reuse, temporal emission resolution, and discrimination of physiological states. Solvent choice (dichloromethane vs. diethyl ether) influenced the quantitative recovery of individual compounds but did not affect the overall FVOC composition detected. Static PDMS and dynamic push-pull sampling produced distinct yet complementary volatilome profiles, with method-specific enrichment across compound classes. Reconditioned PDMS tubing performed equivalently to fresh tubing across repeated deployments, with no detectable decline in compound recovery and multivariate structure. Sequential 96-h sampling captured clear temporal emission patterns in both Trichoderma atroviride and Grosmannia clavigera, revealing species-specific emission trajectories consistent with metabolic stages. Application of the optimized workflow further distinguished T. atroviride morphotypes (white vs. green), which maintained distinct volatile profiles over time and exhibited morphotype-specific emission dynamics in key compounds.
conclusionsThe PDMS-based workflow presented here provides a robust and reproducible framework for FVOC analysis, effectively addressing methodological biases, resolving temporal emission dynamics, and discriminating among physiological states. Standardizing PDMS sampling and extraction substantially enhance the biological interpretability and comparability of FVOC data, enabling broader and more reliable applications in fungal ecology, physiology, and biotechnology.
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.