Kari Oline Bøifot1,2, Jostein Gohli1, Gunnar Skogan1, Marius Dybwad3,4. 1. Norwegian Defence Research Establishment FFI, P O Box 25, NO-2027, Kjeller, Norway. 2. Department of Analytics, Environmental & Forensic Sciences, King's College London, 150 Stamford Street, London, SE1 9NH, UK. 3. Norwegian Defence Research Establishment FFI, P O Box 25, NO-2027, Kjeller, Norway. marius.dybwad@ffi.no. 4. Department of Analytics, Environmental & Forensic Sciences, King's College London, 150 Stamford Street, London, SE1 9NH, UK. marius.dybwad@ffi.no.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reliable identification and quantification of bioaerosols is fundamental in aerosol microbiome research, highlighting the importance of using sampling equipment with well-defined performance characteristics. Following advances in sequencing technology, shotgun metagenomic sequencing (SMS) of environmental samples is now possible. However, SMS of air samples is challenging due to low biomass, but with the use of high-volume air samplers sufficient DNA yields can be obtained. Here we investigate the sampling performance and comparability of two hand-portable, battery-operated, high-volume electret filter air samplers, SASS 3100 and ACD-200 Bobcat, previously used in SMS-based aerosol microbiome research. RESULTS: SASS and Bobcat consistently delivered end-to-end sampling efficiencies > 80% during the aerosol chamber evaluation, demonstrating both as effective high-volume air samplers capable of retaining quantitative associations. Filter recovery efficiencies were investigated with manual and sampler-specific semi-automated extraction procedures. Bobcat semi-automated extraction showed reduced efficiency compared to manual extraction. Bobcat tended towards higher sampling efficiencies compared to SASS when combined with manual extraction. To evaluate real-world sampling performance, side-by-side SASS and Bobcat sampling was done in a semi-suburban outdoor environment and subway stations. SMS-based microbiome profiles revealed that highly abundant bacterial species had similar representation across samplers. While alpha diversity did not vary for the two samplers, beta diversity analyses showed significant within-pair variation in subway samples. Certain species were found to be captured only by one of the two samplers, particularly in subway samples. CONCLUSIONS: SASS and Bobcat were both found capable of collecting sufficient aerosol biomass amounts for SMS, even at sampling times down to 30 min. Bobcat semi-automated filter extraction was shown to be less effective than manual filter extraction. For the most abundant species the samplers were comparable, but systematic sampler-specific differences were observed at species level. This suggests that studies conducted with these highly similar air samplers can be compared in a meaningful way, but it would not be recommended to combine samples from the two samplers in joint analyses. The outcome of this work contributes to improved selection of sampling equipment for use in SMS-based aerosol microbiome research and highlights the importance of acknowledging bias introduced by sampling equipment and sample recovery procedures.
BACKGROUND: Reliable identification and quantification of bioaerosols is fundamental in aerosol microbiome research, highlighting the importance of using sampling equipment with well-defined performance characteristics. Following advances in sequencing technology, shotgun metagenomic sequencing (SMS) of environmental samples is now possible. However, SMS of air samples is challenging due to low biomass, but with the use of high-volume air samplers sufficient DNA yields can be obtained. Here we investigate the sampling performance and comparability of two hand-portable, battery-operated, high-volume electret filter air samplers, SASS 3100 and ACD-200 Bobcat, previously used in SMS-based aerosol microbiome research. RESULTS:SASS and Bobcat consistently delivered end-to-end sampling efficiencies > 80% during the aerosol chamber evaluation, demonstrating both as effective high-volume air samplers capable of retaining quantitative associations. Filter recovery efficiencies were investigated with manual and sampler-specific semi-automated extraction procedures. Bobcat semi-automated extraction showed reduced efficiency compared to manual extraction. Bobcat tended towards higher sampling efficiencies compared to SASS when combined with manual extraction. To evaluate real-world sampling performance, side-by-side SASS and Bobcat sampling was done in a semi-suburban outdoor environment and subway stations. SMS-based microbiome profiles revealed that highly abundant bacterial species had similar representation across samplers. While alpha diversity did not vary for the two samplers, beta diversity analyses showed significant within-pair variation in subway samples. Certain species were found to be captured only by one of the two samplers, particularly in subway samples. CONCLUSIONS:SASS and Bobcat were both found capable of collecting sufficient aerosol biomass amounts for SMS, even at sampling times down to 30 min. Bobcat semi-automated filter extraction was shown to be less effective than manual filter extraction. For the most abundant species the samplers were comparable, but systematic sampler-specific differences were observed at species level. This suggests that studies conducted with these highly similar air samplers can be compared in a meaningful way, but it would not be recommended to combine samples from the two samplers in joint analyses. The outcome of this work contributes to improved selection of sampling equipment for use in SMS-based aerosol microbiome research and highlights the importance of acknowledging bias introduced by sampling equipment and sample recovery procedures.
Authors: Steven J Biller; Paul M Berube; Keven Dooley; Madeline Williams; Brandon M Satinsky; Thomas Hackl; Shane L Hogle; Allison Coe; Kristin Bergauer; Heather A Bouman; Thomas J Browning; Daniele De Corte; Christel Hassler; Debbie Hulston; Jeremy E Jacquot; Elizabeth W Maas; Thomas Reinthaler; Eva Sintes; Taichi Yokokawa; Sallie W Chisholm Journal: Sci Data Date: 2018-09-04 Impact factor: 6.444
Authors: Paula King; Long K Pham; Shannon Waltz; Dan Sphar; Robert T Yamamoto; Douglas Conrad; Randy Taplitz; Francesca Torriani; R Allyn Forsyth Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ebrahim Afshinnekoo; Cem Meydan; Shanin Chowdhury; Dyala Jaroudi; Collin Boyer; Nick Bernstein; Julia M Maritz; Darryl Reeves; Jorge Gandara; Sagar Chhangawala; Sofia Ahsanuddin; Amber Simmons; Timothy Nessel; Bharathi Sundaresh; Elizabeth Pereira; Ellen Jorgensen; Sergios-Orestis Kolokotronis; Nell Kirchberger; Isaac Garcia; David Gandara; Sean Dhanraj; Tanzina Nawrin; Yogesh Saletore; Noah Alexander; Priyanka Vijay; Elizabeth M Hénaff; Paul Zumbo; Michael Walsh; Gregory D O'Mullan; Scott Tighe; Joel T Dudley; Anya Dunaif; Sean Ennis; Eoghan O'Halloran; Tiago R Magalhaes; Braden Boone; Angela L Jones; Theodore R Muth; Katie Schneider Paolantonio; Elizabeth Alter; Eric E Schadt; Jeanne Garbarino; Robert J Prill; Jane M Carlton; Shawn Levy; Christopher E Mason Journal: Cell Syst Date: 2015-03-03 Impact factor: 10.304
Authors: Shibu Yooseph; Cynthia Andrews-Pfannkoch; Aaron Tenney; Jeff McQuaid; Shannon Williamson; Mathangi Thiagarajan; Daniel Brami; Lisa Zeigler-Allen; Jeff Hoffman; Johannes B Goll; Douglas Fadrosh; John Glass; Mark D Adams; Robert Friedman; J Craig Venter Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-12-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Maria Rita Perrone; Salvatore Romano; Giuseppe De Maria; Paolo Tundo; Anna Rita Bruno; Luigi Tagliaferro; Michele Maffia; Mattia Fragola Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-16 Impact factor: 4.614