| Literature DB >> 31835614 |
Xavier Libert1,2, Camille Chasseur3, Ann Packeu3, Fabrice Bureau2, Nancy H Roosens1, Sigrid C J De Keersmaecker1.
Abstract
Today, indoor air pollution is considered a public health issue. Among the impacting pollutants, indoor airborne fungi are increasingly highlighted. Most of the monitoring protocols are culture-based, but these are unable to detect the uncultivable and/or dead fraction or species suppressed by fast-growing fungi, even though this fraction could impact health. Among the contaminants suspected to be part of this fraction, Exophiala jeanselmei is an interesting case study. Known to be pathogenic, this black yeast grows in humid environments such as air-conditioning systems, where it has been previously detected using classical culture-based methods. However, until now, this fungus was never detected in indoor air in contact with these air-conditioning systems. This study shows the first detection of E. jeanselmei in indoor air collected from offices in contact with contaminated air-conditioning reservoirs. While its presence in indoor air could not be demonstrated with culture-based methods, it was found by real-time PCR and massive parallel sequencing. The latter also allowed obtaining a broader view on the fungal diversity in the tested samples. Similar approaches were applied on water samples collected from the conditioning reservoirs to trace the source of contamination. The comparison of results obtained with both methods confirmed that the molecular tools could improve indoor air monitoring, especially of dead and/or uncultivable contaminants or when competition between species could occur.Entities:
Keywords: Exophiala jeanselmei; NGS; detection; identification; indoor air contamination; molecular methods; public health; real-time PCR
Year: 2019 PMID: 31835614 PMCID: PMC6955718 DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms7120674
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microorganisms ISSN: 2076-2607
Detection of E. jeanselmei in indoor air and water in air-conditioning systems: Classical analysis and RT-PCR.
| Sample ID * | Pulse Group | Office | Sample Type | Analysis Method | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Culture | RT-PCR | |||||
| CFU/mL 1 | Tm (°C) 2 | Cq 3 | ||||
| PG1 4 | 1 | Water 5 | 0 | N/A | N/A | |
| PG1-1 | 1 | 1 | Air | 0 | N/A | N/A |
| PG1-2 | 1 | 2 | Air | 0 | N/A | N/A |
| PG1-3 | 1 | 3 | Air | 0 | N/A | N/A |
| PG2 | 2 | Water 5 | 10 | 79.53 ± 0.12 | 28.00 ± 1.35 | |
| PG2-1 | 2 | 1 | Air | 0 | N/A | N/A |
| PG2-2 | 2 | 2 | Air | 0 | N/A | N/A |
| PG2-3 | 2 | 3 | Air | 0 | N/A | N/A |
| PG3 | 3 | Water 5 | 10 | 79.79 ± 0.32 | 28.39 ± 0.93 | |
| PG3-1 | 3 | 1 | Air | 0 | N/A | N/A |
| PG3-2 | 3 | 2 | Air | 0 | N/A | N/A |
| PG3-3 | 3 | 3 | Air | 0 | N/A | N/A |
| PG4 | 4 | Water 5 | 100 | 79.93 ± 0.05 | 20.32 ± 1.98 | |
| PG4-1 | 4 | 1 | Air | 0 | 79.44 ± 0.10 | 23.79 ± 0.92 |
| PG4-2 | 4 | 2 | Air | 0 | 79.49 ± 0.03 | 24.49 ± 0.23 |
| PG4-3 | 4 | 3 | Air | 0 | 79.38 ± 0.03 | 34.05 ± 1.75 |
| PG5 | 4 | Water 5 | 15 | 79.34 ± 0.23 | 27.36 ± 1.12 | |
| PG5-1 | 5 | 1 | Air | 0 | 79.39 ± 0.02 | 27.62 ± 0.63 |
| PG5-2 | 5 | 2 | Air | 0 | N/A | N/A |
| PG5-3 | 5 | 3 | Air | 0 | N/A | N/A |
* PG = pulse group, i.e., the part of the air-conditioning system containing the machinery to pulse the air and the water-reservoir needed to maintain the required hygrometry level; the first number refers to the number of the PG (five in total); the number after the ‘-’ refers to the office connected to the PG, at different distances (see Materials and Methods). 1 CFU/mL defined as the number of colonies of E. jeanselmei on plate after 21 days of incubation at 37 °C. 2 Tm defined as the average of the melting temperature (°C) observed for each RT-PCR amplicon obtained during the qPCR SYBR®Green analysis performed in duplicate in two independent runs. 3 Cq defined as the average quantification cycle observed for each RT-PCR amplicon obtained during the qPCR SYBR®Green analysis performed in duplicate in two independent runs. 4 PG1 was maintained before the sampling. 5 One sample per pulse group was analyzed.
Fungal contamination in water samples, other than E. jeanselmei: Classical analysis and sequencing analysis comparison.
| Sample * | Classical Analysis 1 | NGS | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species | CFU/mL | Species | Abundance of Reads Per OTU 2 (%) | |
| PG1 |
| 5 |
| 100 |
| PG2 |
| 5 |
| 60.64 |
|
| 1 |
| 11.27 | |
| Nonsporulating sp. | 1 | |||
|
| 4 |
| 36.34 | |
| PG3 |
| 5 |
| 30.15 |
| Nonsporulating sp. | 2 | |||
| Undetermined species | 1 | |||
| PG4 |
| 2 |
| 12.19 |
| PG5 |
| 3 |
| 23.30 |
|
| 11.86 |
* PG = pulse group, i.e., the part of the air-conditioning system containing the machinery to pulse the air and the water-reservoir needed to maintain the required hygrometry level; the first number refers to the number of the PG (5 in total). 1 CFU/mL defined as the number of colonies observed on plate after five days and 21 days of incubation at 37 °C, E. jeanselmei excluded. The data for E. jeanselmei is presented in Table 1. 2 The massive parallel sequencing data were analyzed with the CLC Genomic Workbench software (Qiagen Benelux, B.V., KJ Venlo, the Netherlands) and the Microbial Genomics Module. The database used as reference was the UNITE database36.
Fungal contamination in air samples, other than E. jeanselmei: Classical analysis and sequencing analysis comparison.
| Samples * | Classical Analysis 1 | NGS 2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species | CFU/mL | Species | Abundance of Reads | |
| PG1-1 |
| 5 |
| 21.86 |
|
| 3 |
| 11.49 | |
|
| 9 |
| 66.65 | |
| PG1-2 |
| 3 |
| 24.72 |
| 2 |
| 7.70 | ||
| Nonsporulating sp. | 1 |
| 4.43 | |
|
| 7 |
| 62.40 | |
| PG1-3 |
| 2 |
| 31.28 |
| Undetermined species | 1 |
| 15.93 | |
| Nonsporulating sp. | 1 |
| 12.47 | |
|
| 7 |
| 39.58 | |
| PG2-1 | Undetermined sp. | 2 |
| 16.22 |
|
| 6 |
| 71.44 | |
|
| 12.35 | |||
| PG2-2 |
| 2 |
| 24.59 |
|
| 6 |
| 75.41 | |
| PG2-3 |
| 4 |
| 32.28 |
|
| 5 |
| 32.09 | |
| 1 |
| 24.26 | ||
| Nonsporulating sp. | 1 |
| 11.37 | |
| PG3-1 |
| 4 |
| 53.50 |
|
| 5 |
| 46.50 | |
| PG3-2 |
| 5 |
| 71.96 |
| Undetermined sp. | 2 |
| 16.41 | |
|
| 11.63 | |||
| PG3-3 | 2 |
| 11.18 | |
|
| 19.56 | |||
|
| 20.40 | |||
|
| 6 |
| 48.85 | |
| PG4-1 |
| 1 |
| 26.18 |
|
| 1 | Undertermined sp. | 13.07 | |
| Nonsporulating sp. | 1 | |||
| PG4-2 |
| 3 |
| 17.48 |
|
| 9 |
| 40.88 | |
| Undetermined sp. | ||||
| PG4-3 |
| 4 |
| 29.12 |
| Nonsporulating sp. | 1 |
| 24.38 | |
|
| 7.17 | |||
| PG5-1 |
| 7 |
| 64.57 |
| Undetermined sp. | 1 |
| 13.98 | |
| Nonsporulating sp. | 1 |
| 10.46 | |
| PG5-2 |
| 4 |
| 31.33 |
|
| 4 |
| 32.55 | |
|
| 36.12 | |||
| Nonsporulating sp. | 2 | |||
| PG5-3 |
| 6 |
| 39.24 |
|
| 8 |
| 60.76 |
* PG = pulse group, i.e., the part of the air-conditioning system containing the machinery to pulse the air and the water-reservoir needed to maintain the required hygrometry level; the first number refers to the number of the PG (5 in total); the number after the ‘-‘ refers to the office connected to the PG, at different distances (see Materials and Methods). 1 CFU/mL defined as the number of colonies observed on plate after five days and 21 days of incubation at 37 °C. 2 The massive parallel sequencing data were analyzed with the CLC Genomic Workbench software (Qiagen Benelux, B.V., KJ Venlo, the Netherlands) and the Microbial Genomics Module. The database used as reference was the UNITE database36.
Detection of E. jeanselmei in indoor air and water in air-conditioning systems: sequencing data and clustering results.
| Pulse Group | Office 1 | Sample Type | Total Number of Reads 2 | Total of Reads Clustered 3 | % | Abundance of Reads into | % Reads into | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PG1 7 | 1 | Water 8 | 13,124 | 11,602 | 88.40 | 0 | 0 | |
| PG1-1 | 1 | 1 | Air | 29,666 | 23,545 | 79.37 | 0 | 0 |
| PG1-2 | 1 | 2 | Air | 19,753 | 19,603 | 99.24 | 0 | 0 |
| PG1-3 | 1 | 3 | Air | 6352 | 6305 | 99.26 | 0 | 0 |
| PG2 | 2 | Water 8 | 9755 | 9741 | 99.86 | 2727 | 28.00 | |
| PG2-1 | 2 | 1 | Air | 28,487 | 20,928 | 73.47 | 0 | 0 |
| PG2-2 | 2 | 2 | Air | 15,193 | 15,093 | 99.34 | 0 | 0 |
| PG2-3 | 2 | 3 | Air | 28,338 | 25,260 | 89.14 | 0 | 0 |
| PG3 | 3 | Water 8 | 11,148 | 6797 | 60.97 | 2278 | 33.51 | |
| PG3-1 | 3 | 1 | Air | 9154 | 9003 | 98.35 | 0 | 0 |
| PG3-2 | 3 | 2 | Air | 9474 | 9434 | 99.58 | 0 | 0 |
| PG3-3 | 3 | 3 | Air | 9474 | 9165 | 96.74 | 0 | 0 |
| PG4 | 4 | Water 8 | 10,675 | 10,616 | 99.45 | 5700 | 53.69 | |
| PG4-1 | 4 | 1 | Air | 8402 | 8360 | 99.50 | 5078 | 60.74 |
| PG4-2 | 4 | 2 | Air | 16,838 | 16,837 | 99.99 | 7011 | 41.64 |
| PG4-3 | 4 | 3 | Air | 20,286 | 20,059 | 98.88 | 7888 | 39.32 |
| PG5 | 4 | Water 8 | 9302 | 8458 | 90.93 | 4453 | 52.65 | |
| PG5-1 | 5 | 1 | Air | 12,288 | 11,355 | 92.41 | 1248 | 10.99 |
| PG5-2 | 5 | 2 | Air | 16,337 | 7016 | 42.95 | 0 | 0 |
| PG5-3 | 5 | 3 | Air | 9328 | 9320 | 99.91 | 0 | 0 |
The massive parallel sequencing data were analyzed with the CLC Genomic Workbench software (Qiagen Benelux, B.V., KJ Venlo, the Netherlands) and the Microbial Genomics Module. The database used as reference was the UNITE database36. 1 Three offices per pulse group (PG) were sampled according to their distance to the PG. Office 1 corresponds to the closest located office to the PG, office 3 the most distantly located office to the PG, and office 2 correspond to the office located between the two others. 2 The total number of reads observed for each sample. 3 Number of total reads grouped in the 10 OTUs detected, i.e., A. alternata, Aspergillus fumigatus, Aspergillus monodii, Aspergillus puulaaeunsis, Aspergillus rugulosus, Aspergillus subversicolor, Emericella olivicola, Emericella undulata, P. chrysogenum, and E. jeanselmei. 4 Percentage obtained as the ratio between the number of reads grouped into the 10 OTUs and the total number of reads observed for each sample. 5 Number of reads corresponding to OTU identified as E. jeanselmei. 6 Percentage obtained as the ratio between the number of reads corresponding to the E. jeanselmei OTU and the total number of clustered reads. 7 PG1 maintained before the sampling. 8 One sample per pulse group was analyzed.
Figure 1Neighbor Joining tree obtained for the water samples. The Neighbor Joining tree was constructed according to a Jukes Cantor model for the reads obtained for all water samples grouped together.
Figure 2Neighbor Joining tree obtained for the air samples. The Neighbor Joining tree was constructed according to a Jukes Cantor model for the reads obtained for all air samples grouped together.