# Comparison of Methods to Identify and Monitor Mold Damages in Buildings
## 4 Discussion
### Concluding Remarks  
This study, combining two complementary methods (microscopy and DNA metabarcoding), achieved relatively consistent results of the mycobiota associated with visible mold growth in buildings, where as much as 79.2% of the microscopy-identified taxa were confirmed by DNA analysis at the genus level. In addition, the dust DNA metabarcoding provided comprehensive lists of airborne taxa that were present in the apartments as both viable and non-viable forms, whose interpretation is challenging. Our data indicate some local spread of moisture indicator fungi from moldy materials to other rooms. However, further DNA studies including the intensive sampling in different rooms of single moldy buildings are needed to conclude such a statement. Collecting more variables related to the materials and environmental conditions (e.g., water content, temperature, and RH) will better characterize the ecological niches studied (fungal traits), facilitating the identification of moisture indicator fungi. In addition, conducting these studies in different geographic regions will improve the knowledge about their most common indoor airborne fungi. In summary, to assess mold damages, different microbiological methods, such as microscopy, culturing, and DNA and chemical analyses, should be combined together in a thorough inspection of buildings, collecting the relevant metadata. This multifaceted approach will, to a large extent, overcome the limitations of each method. The expected valuable datasets need to be interpreted by skilled mycologists and building consultantswith knowledge about indoor fungal ecology, building structures, and environmental conditions, among others. The following are available online at [[https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app12189372/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app12189372/s1)]([https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app12189372/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app12189372/s1)), Table S1: Data of the top-200 most abundant OTUs, including relative abundances, curated taxonomic assignment as well as their representative ITS2 sequences, Table S2: Comparison of fungi detected in different substrates by using microscopy (mold samples) and DNA metabarcoding (both mold and dust samples from the same damaged room)--data from fourteen apartments that only include dust samples from the damaged rooms, Table S3: Comparison of fungi detected in mold samples by using both microscopy and DNA metabarcoding--data from eight apartments that only include mold samples. Conceptualization, P.M.M.-S. and M.N., with contributions from H.K., LS, and E.L.F.E. ; methodology and investigation, P.M.M.-S. and M.N. ; formal analysis, visualization, data curation, and writing--original draft preparation, P.M.M.-S.; writing--review and editing, all authors; supervision, H.K. ; funding acquisition and project administration, P.M.M.-S. and H.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. This study received funding from the EUROPEAN UNION'S HORIZON 2020 research and innovation programme through a Marie Sklodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship to P.M.M.-S., under the grant agreement Mycolndoor No 741332. Not applicable. All datasets needed to reproduce this study are available on Zenodo ([[https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6670343](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6670343)]([https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6670343](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6670343))), including metadata, the quality-filtered fungal rarefied OTU table, and taxonomic assignment. To protect the personal data of the owners of the study apartments, their addresses and geographic coordinates were omitted from the metadata. R scripts used for statistical analyses will be available upon request. All Mycoteam's inspectors who provided samples and data of the study apartments are acknowledged for their essential contributions. The authors declare no conflict of interest.