2018
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194489
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

DNA metabarcoding uncovers fungal diversity of mixed airborne samples in Italy

Abstract: Fungal spores and mycelium fragments are particles which become and remain airborne and have been subjects of aerobiological studies. The presence and the abundance of taxa in aerobiological samples can be very variable and impaired by changeable climatic conditions. Because many fungi produce mycotoxins and both their mycelium fragments and spores are potential allergens, monitoring the presence of these taxa is of key importance. So far data on exposure and sensitization to fungal allergens are mainly based … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
61
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 63 publications
(62 citation statements)
references
References 109 publications
1
61
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Taxonomic classification at species and strain levels using metabarcoding and metagenomic data has been considered inaccurate (Nilsson et al 2019;Sczyrba et al 2017;Yamamoto et al 2014), raising the question of how our metatranscriptomics approach succeeded in identifying closely-related fungal strains. Metabarcoding relies on a single or multiple genetic marker(s) (Banchi et al 2018;e.g. McGuire et al 2013;Schmidt et al 2013), which does not contain sufficient phylogenetic information to differentiate some closely related fungal lineages (Balasundaram et al 2015;Nilsson et al 2008).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Taxonomic classification at species and strain levels using metabarcoding and metagenomic data has been considered inaccurate (Nilsson et al 2019;Sczyrba et al 2017;Yamamoto et al 2014), raising the question of how our metatranscriptomics approach succeeded in identifying closely-related fungal strains. Metabarcoding relies on a single or multiple genetic marker(s) (Banchi et al 2018;e.g. McGuire et al 2013;Schmidt et al 2013), which does not contain sufficient phylogenetic information to differentiate some closely related fungal lineages (Balasundaram et al 2015;Nilsson et al 2008).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Taxonomic classification at species and strain levels using metabarcoding and metagenomic data has been considered inaccurate (Nilsson et al 2019; Sczyrba et al 2017; Yamamoto et al 2014), raising the question of how our metatranscriptomics approach succeeded in identifying closely-related fungal strains. Metabarcoding relies on a single marker gene (Banchi et al 2018; e.g. McGuire et al 2013; Schmidt et al 2013), which does not contain sufficient phylogenetic information to differentiate some closely related fungal lineages (Balasundaram et al 2015; Nilsson et al 2008).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Blaalid et al [24] obtained similar results when using either ITS1 or ITS2 to perform fungal metabarcoding with environmental data, but Banchi et al [25] showed discrepancies and biases in the detection of Basidiomycota when ITS1 or ITS2 were used as metabarcode for lichen mycobiomes, and suggested the complementary analysis of both ITS1 and ITS2 to reliably estimate the taxonomic diversity of the samples. In similar studies, Wang et al [26] concluded conversely that ITS1 provides a better DNA barcode than ITS2 allowing a better species discrimination efficiency, whereas the ITS2 has been specifically selected and preferred to ITS1 in another study to catch fungal diversity in airborne samples [27]. It is clear that an a priori choice of the region/s to target was not ideal, and for this reason, our analysis of the fungal communities targeted specifically both the ITS1 and the ITS2 regions.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 94%