Abstract

The atmosphere may be Earth’s largest microbial ecosystem. It is connected to all of Earth’s surface ecosystems and plays an important role in microbial dispersal on local to global scales. Despite this grand scale, surprisingly little is understood about the atmosphere itself as a habitat. A key question remains unresolved: does the atmosphere simply transport microorganisms from one location to another, or does it harbour adapted, resident, and active microbial communities that overcome the physiological stressors and selection pressures the atmosphere poses to life? Advances in extreme microbiology and astrobiology continue to push our understanding of the limits of life towards ever greater extremes of temperature, pressure, salinity, irradiance, pH, and water availability. Earth’s atmosphere stands as a challenging, but potentially surmountable, extreme environment to harbour living, active, resident microorganisms. Here, we confront the current understanding of the atmosphere as a microbial habitat, highlighting key advances and limitations. We pose major ecological and mechanistic questions about microbial life in the atmosphere that remain unresolved and frame the problems and technical pitfalls that have largely hindered recent developments in this space, providing evidence-based insights to drive future research in this field. New innovations supported by rigorous technical standards are needed to enable progress in understanding atmospheric microorganisms and their influence on global processes of weather, climate, nutrient cycling, biodiversity, and microbial connectivity, especially in the context of rapid global change.

An ocean of air: the significance of the atmosphere as a microbial ecosystem

In 1644, the physicist Evangelista Torricelli wrote a letter that contained the phrase “Noi viviamo sommersi nel fondo d’un pelago d’aria,” or “We live submerged at the bottom of an ocean of air” [1]. Torricelli was addressing the significance of barometric pressure, but this “ocean of air” is an apt concept for our consideration of the atmosphere as a microbial habitat, as presented by Womack et al. in 2010 [2]. The atmosphere forms a blanket over the lithosphere, hydrosphere, and cryosphere, which are well-known microbial ecosystems. It is reasonable that the atmosphere is another planetary scale habitat harbouring microbial communities that interact with their environment and exert significant influence over global-scale processes, yet few have considered the possibility prior to the recent renewed interest in atmospheric microbial ecology [3–7]. A recent estimate of the biomass distribution on Earth omits atmospheric biomass [8], reflective of frequent lack of consideration of the atmosphere as part of the biosphere. Yet, broad estimates of cell abundance in the atmosphere suggest that near-surface air contains 104 to 105 microbial cells per m3 [9], scaling to a total of 5 × 1022 cells in the troposphere [10]. While these estimates contain substantial variability across regions and quantification approaches, the atmosphere is nonetheless a substantial habitat about which we understand disproportionately little despite its planet-wide coverage.

The atmosphere’s most evident ecological role is as a transport medium. Dispersal of microorganisms through the air is a critical ecological process in the spread of pathogens over short (e.g. SARS-CoV-2, measles [11]) and long (e.g. fungal spores responsible for wheat rust affecting agriculture [12]) distances. The atmosphere also plays a role in the evolution and maintenance of global biodiversity [13], with suggested evidence of intercontinental transmission of bacteria [5, 14, 15], which are estimated to reside in the atmosphere for 2–15 days [16]. Lourens Baas-Becking’s oft-used quote “everything is everywhere, but the environment selects” indeed originally refers to the atmosphere’s presumed homogeneous distribution of microorganisms across habitats and suggests that those organisms most adapted to a given surface environment would survive upon deposition and reside in a suitable niche [17]. However, this hypothesis has been frequently challenged by the recognition that it is simply not possible for all extant microorganisms to concurrently be everywhere in the atmosphere, and evidence indeed suggests that microorganisms are dispersal limited [18, 19]. In turn, this places the atmosphere not as a reservoir of all microorganisms on the planet, but as an intermediate habitat containing microbial communities constrained by inputs from surface environments, survival and residence times, and other physicochemical factors.

Classically, the atmosphere has been viewed as a conduit for the passive dispersal of microorganisms via random (i.e. neutral) processes [20]. Under this model, suspended microorganisms may be largely inactive during their transit before eventual deposition in a geographically distinct and potentially more suitable habitat [21]. However, the atmosphere is a hostile environment requiring resilience to freezing temperatures, high ultraviolet (UV) radiation, oxygen radicals, and desiccation [21], suggesting selection likely occurs prior to deposition (i.e. niche processes). If the atmosphere were instead considered to be a “true” ecosystem, by definition, this would comprise metabolically active organisms interacting with their environment and each other while suspended in the air [2, 4]. Such an atmospheric ecosystem may comprise multiple distinct habitats (e.g. dust, clouds, methane-rich air) and host resident microorganisms that could profoundly influence global biology, chemistry, and climate beyond the current paradigm [2, 5, 13].

Microbial life on Earth is diverse and resilient, with survival capabilities that regularly push the boundaries of previously established physicochemical limits of life. Psychrophilic microorganisms can divide at temperatures as low as −15°C (Planococcus halocryophilus) [22] and metabolize at much lower temperatures [23, 24]; deeply buried microorganisms can survive at extraordinarily low rates of energy use [25]; polyextremophiles can resist multiple stressors including desiccation and ionizing radiation (e.g. Deinococcus radiodurans) [26]; and notably, microorganisms can metabolize atmospheric concentrations of trace gases (e.g. H2, CO, CH4) to support their energetic needs [27–30]. Life in the atmosphere is certainly challenging, but the conditions experienced by atmosphere-dwelling microbial cells are well within the boundaries currently considered to limit life. Indeed, exchange with physiologically challenging surface environments (e.g. the Atacama Desert, Antarctic dry valleys, or the cryosphere) may seed the atmosphere with resilient microorganisms that are well suited to atmospheric survival.

A critical question in aerobiology remains unresolved: does the atmosphere support microbial life only through passive dispersal, or does it additionally host an active resident microbiome that interacts with other ecosystem components? We foresee a plethora of research opportunities to fill knowledge gaps in atmospheric biodiversity, microbial activity, and adaptation to environmental stresses (Box 1, Fig. 1), akin to those that have driven decades of research in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

Box 1.

Key open questions in atmospheric microbiology

  • 1. Does the atmosphere contribute only to the dispersal of microorganisms, or does it additionally host a resident microbial community shaped by selection pressures?

This fundamental question has been posed several times in recent years [2, 4–6]. Despite decades of research, it has not been empirically determined whether the atmosphere hosts resident (either permanent or temporary) microbial communities, as other environmental compartments on the planet do. Are atmospheric microbial communities assembled via stochastic, random aerosolization and subsequent mixing of terrestrial and marine microorganisms, or do environmental conditions and other factors select for organisms that are more readily aerosolized and can survive in the atmosphere? Is the atmospheric microbiome shaped by selection of these adapted microorganisms, or by “selective death” of organisms that cannot survive atmospheric conditions? To what extent is microbial survivability shaped by chance rather than specific adaptations? Is there a continuous, resident microbiome in the atmosphere, or is microbial community composition dynamic, with regular turnover of organisms via mixing with adjacent environments that vary across geographical locations? The concept of obligately atmospheric, or “Peter Pan” (never landing) microorganisms has recently been proposed [3] and presents a curious avenue of study that will help to define the nature of the atmospheric ecosystem and the requirements to sustain atmospheric microbial life.

  • 2. How do atmospheric microorganisms persist in the extreme but likely habitable conditions in the atmosphere?

The atmosphere poses harsh conditions to life, including desiccation, exposure to UV radiation, low temperature, and low pressure. What molecular or physiological mechanisms do microorganisms employ to survive these conditions? Is this a matter of tolerance and stress resilience until deposition in a suitable environment, or do some atmospheric organisms prefer such extremes? Is there a combination of challenging conditions in the atmosphere that precludes long-term survival of life [31–33]? Does life in the atmosphere consist only of spores and cells that are inactive until deposited, or of cells that are both active and resilient? Is survival sustained by particle association, which may provide some nutrients, protection, or attract water vapour?

  • 3. Are microorganisms active and carrying out functional ecosystem roles in the atmosphere?

Preliminary evidence suggests that certain microorganisms are viable and actively metabolizing in the atmosphere [34–38], though this is not well demonstrated outside of in vitro experiments. What roles do atmospheric microorganisms play in the wider ecosystem, and potentially in global atmospheric processes? How does atmospheric residence time impact microbial activity, and does activity change with time through loss of viability or stimulation by particular microenvironments (e.g. clouds)? It is feasible that atmospheric microorganisms could contribute to global biogeochemical processes through metabolic activities, including carbon fixation or degradation of carbon compounds (e.g. pollutants); enhancing or competing with abiotic reactions; or by the production or consumption of climate-relevant gases, an ecological role and metabolic strategy with increasingly recognized importance in other low biomass microbial ecosystems such as arid deserts and the cryosphere [30, 39].

Additionally, atmospheric microorganisms likely influence global biodiversity through dispersal and exchange of organisms between environments, including the transmission of pathogens, antimicrobial resistance genes, mobile genetic elements, and phages. Low levels of biomass in the atmosphere may correspond to low microbial activity, but is this collectively important on a global scale? How significant could this contribution be to global phenomena? Interdisciplinary efforts are essential for both experimental and detailed modelling studies to understand the role of the atmosphere in biogeochemical cycling.

  • 4. What is the impact of climate change on atmosphere-dwelling microorganisms and their potential role in biogeochemical cycling?

If atmospheric microorganisms contribute to regional and global element cycling, climate, and atmospheric processes, as is the case with soil and marine microorganisms, it is reasonable to assume an interplay between climate change and these activities. How will warming, increased extreme weather events, increasingly ice-free areas, and changes in atmospheric gas and aerosol composition influence atmospheric microbial communities and their activities?

Null and alternative hypotheses on significant fundamental questions and their implications for atmospheric microbial ecology. Created with BioRender.com.
Figure 1

Null and alternative hypotheses on significant fundamental questions and their implications for atmospheric microbial ecology. Created with BioRender.com.

Are atmospheric microbial communities structured and adapted?

Addressing the composition, structure, and adaptations of an entire atmospheric microbial community is a task well suited to comprehensive molecular approaches. Molecular tools have enabled many insights into atmospheric microbial ecology, as they are highly sensitive and capable of detecting organisms from multiple domains of life. Recent ribosomal amplicon sequencing studies have consistently revealed that airborne microbiota are primarily a collection of organisms sourced from terrestrial and marine inputs, with increased representation of “local” microorganisms from underlying or adjacent environments [14, 15, 40–43]. Airborne microbial assemblages can be highly variable, fluctuating daily and seasonally [42, 44–47], differing with biogeography [40, 43], and have been observed to “wash out” of the atmosphere with precipitation events [48]. These findings imply that the atmospheric microbiome is a “moving imprint” of surface ecosystems (aptly described by Amato et al. [49]), rather than a community of organisms endemic only to the atmosphere. Reciprocally, the atmosphere contributes new microorganisms to terrestrial ecosystems via dispersion, deposition, and subsequent colonization [50–52]. This transient nature of the atmospheric microbiota makes for a uniquely dynamic ecosystem, but does not preclude active or long-term resident populations, nor a structured community shaped by selection pressures, which remain poorly explored. A key component here is whether the communities exhibit evidence of selection and adaptation.

Generally, ribosomal amplicon sequencing approaches targeting prokaryotic or fungal marker genes are robust to contaminating nonmicrobial DNA and remain a widely used and powerful technique for biodiversity profiling. However, the primers, sequencing platforms, clustering methods, and reference databases used to amplify, sequence, and analyse marker genes of interest introduce varied taxonomic biases [53]; thus, comparisons and syntheses of aerobiological amplicon datasets should take such effects into account. Standardized primer sets and protocols have been recommended for other environments (e.g. The Earth Microbiome Project [54]), but the specific primers and bioinformatics pipelines aerobiology researchers select will depend on their research questions and study sites and must include careful consideration of bias against particular taxonomic groups. Further, amplicon sequencing provides only taxonomic information at sometimes limited resolution. Consequently, much of the atmospheric microbial ecology literature has focused on community composition over traits and do not provide sufficient information to address key questions about atmospheric microbial activities, persistence, sustenance, adaptation, and survival (Table 1).

Table 1

Overview of critical concepts regarding the atmosphere as a microbial ecosystem and their associated level of understanding, evidence, and obstacles.

What is understood about…Level of understandingWhat is the evidence?What are the obstacles to our understanding?
1. The presence of microorganisms in the atmosphereHigh understanding
  • Cultured isolates from aerosol samples [35, 37, 38, 55, 56].

  • Molecular work (DNA and RNA detection) Reviewed in [4].

  • Intact cells visualized with microscopy [38, 57–59].

  • Low biomass samples.

  • Contamination

2. The role of the atmosphere as a dispersal mechanism only, or additionally as a habitat for a resident microbial community shaped by selection pressuresLow–medium understanding
  • Molecular work (mostly 16S rRNA and internal transcribed spacer (ITS) amplicon sequencing) confirms atmospheric distribution is strongly tied to surface sources [14, 15, 40–43].

  • Limited sample size.

  • Low biomass samples.

  • Contamination

  • Lack of standardized sampling methodology.

  • Poorly standardized cataloguing of environmental conditions from sampling locations.

3. The viability of microorganisms in the atmosphereLow–medium understanding
  • Culture-based growth confirms the presence of viable bioaerosols [35, 37, 55, 56].

  • Viability staining confirms the presence of viable cells after artificial aerosolization [60].

  • Fluorescence microscopy confirms that bioaerosols can have intact membranes after aerosolization [61].

  • Low biomass samples.

  • Contamination

  • Lack of standardized sampling methodology.

  • Difficulty mimicking atmospheric environmental conditions.

  • Lack of outdoor field studies.

  • Poorly standardized cataloguing of environmental conditions from sampling locations.

4. The in situ activity of atmospheric microorganismsLow understanding
  • Substrate-incubation of artificially aerosolized cells shows bioaerosols can metabolize while suspended [62–64].

  • Molecular work (metatranscriptomics) identifies potentially active taxa that contain relatively abundant RNA [65–67].

  • Fluorescent activity stains show that bioaerosols can stay active after aerosolization [61].

  • Low biomass samples.

  • Contamination

  • Lack of standardized sampling methodology.

  • Sampler interference on cell activity.

  • Poorly standardized cataloguing of environmental conditions from sampling locations.

  • Deficiency of activity measurements on outdoor field samples.

  • Unknown effects of residence time on survival and activity

5. The contribution of atmospheric microorganisms to atmospheric biogeochemical cyclesLow to noneNo clear evidenceSame as question 4.
6. The influence of climate change on atmosphere-dwelling microorganisms and their potential role in biogeochemical cyclingLow to noneNo clear evidence
  • Low biomass samples.

  • Contamination

  • Lack of standardized sampling methodology.

  • Need for longer-term and larger-scale sampling campaigns.

  • Poor understanding of potential atmospheric microbial ecosystems.

What is understood about…Level of understandingWhat is the evidence?What are the obstacles to our understanding?
1. The presence of microorganisms in the atmosphereHigh understanding
  • Cultured isolates from aerosol samples [35, 37, 38, 55, 56].

  • Molecular work (DNA and RNA detection) Reviewed in [4].

  • Intact cells visualized with microscopy [38, 57–59].

  • Low biomass samples.

  • Contamination

2. The role of the atmosphere as a dispersal mechanism only, or additionally as a habitat for a resident microbial community shaped by selection pressuresLow–medium understanding
  • Molecular work (mostly 16S rRNA and internal transcribed spacer (ITS) amplicon sequencing) confirms atmospheric distribution is strongly tied to surface sources [14, 15, 40–43].

  • Limited sample size.

  • Low biomass samples.

  • Contamination

  • Lack of standardized sampling methodology.

  • Poorly standardized cataloguing of environmental conditions from sampling locations.

3. The viability of microorganisms in the atmosphereLow–medium understanding
  • Culture-based growth confirms the presence of viable bioaerosols [35, 37, 55, 56].

  • Viability staining confirms the presence of viable cells after artificial aerosolization [60].

  • Fluorescence microscopy confirms that bioaerosols can have intact membranes after aerosolization [61].

  • Low biomass samples.

  • Contamination

  • Lack of standardized sampling methodology.

  • Difficulty mimicking atmospheric environmental conditions.

  • Lack of outdoor field studies.

  • Poorly standardized cataloguing of environmental conditions from sampling locations.

4. The in situ activity of atmospheric microorganismsLow understanding
  • Substrate-incubation of artificially aerosolized cells shows bioaerosols can metabolize while suspended [62–64].

  • Molecular work (metatranscriptomics) identifies potentially active taxa that contain relatively abundant RNA [65–67].

  • Fluorescent activity stains show that bioaerosols can stay active after aerosolization [61].

  • Low biomass samples.

  • Contamination

  • Lack of standardized sampling methodology.

  • Sampler interference on cell activity.

  • Poorly standardized cataloguing of environmental conditions from sampling locations.

  • Deficiency of activity measurements on outdoor field samples.

  • Unknown effects of residence time on survival and activity

5. The contribution of atmospheric microorganisms to atmospheric biogeochemical cyclesLow to noneNo clear evidenceSame as question 4.
6. The influence of climate change on atmosphere-dwelling microorganisms and their potential role in biogeochemical cyclingLow to noneNo clear evidence
  • Low biomass samples.

  • Contamination

  • Lack of standardized sampling methodology.

  • Need for longer-term and larger-scale sampling campaigns.

  • Poor understanding of potential atmospheric microbial ecosystems.

Table 1

Overview of critical concepts regarding the atmosphere as a microbial ecosystem and their associated level of understanding, evidence, and obstacles.

What is understood about…Level of understandingWhat is the evidence?What are the obstacles to our understanding?
1. The presence of microorganisms in the atmosphereHigh understanding
  • Cultured isolates from aerosol samples [35, 37, 38, 55, 56].

  • Molecular work (DNA and RNA detection) Reviewed in [4].

  • Intact cells visualized with microscopy [38, 57–59].

  • Low biomass samples.

  • Contamination

2. The role of the atmosphere as a dispersal mechanism only, or additionally as a habitat for a resident microbial community shaped by selection pressuresLow–medium understanding
  • Molecular work (mostly 16S rRNA and internal transcribed spacer (ITS) amplicon sequencing) confirms atmospheric distribution is strongly tied to surface sources [14, 15, 40–43].

  • Limited sample size.

  • Low biomass samples.

  • Contamination

  • Lack of standardized sampling methodology.

  • Poorly standardized cataloguing of environmental conditions from sampling locations.

3. The viability of microorganisms in the atmosphereLow–medium understanding
  • Culture-based growth confirms the presence of viable bioaerosols [35, 37, 55, 56].

  • Viability staining confirms the presence of viable cells after artificial aerosolization [60].

  • Fluorescence microscopy confirms that bioaerosols can have intact membranes after aerosolization [61].

  • Low biomass samples.

  • Contamination

  • Lack of standardized sampling methodology.

  • Difficulty mimicking atmospheric environmental conditions.

  • Lack of outdoor field studies.

  • Poorly standardized cataloguing of environmental conditions from sampling locations.

4. The in situ activity of atmospheric microorganismsLow understanding
  • Substrate-incubation of artificially aerosolized cells shows bioaerosols can metabolize while suspended [62–64].

  • Molecular work (metatranscriptomics) identifies potentially active taxa that contain relatively abundant RNA [65–67].

  • Fluorescent activity stains show that bioaerosols can stay active after aerosolization [61].

  • Low biomass samples.

  • Contamination

  • Lack of standardized sampling methodology.

  • Sampler interference on cell activity.

  • Poorly standardized cataloguing of environmental conditions from sampling locations.

  • Deficiency of activity measurements on outdoor field samples.

  • Unknown effects of residence time on survival and activity

5. The contribution of atmospheric microorganisms to atmospheric biogeochemical cyclesLow to noneNo clear evidenceSame as question 4.
6. The influence of climate change on atmosphere-dwelling microorganisms and their potential role in biogeochemical cyclingLow to noneNo clear evidence
  • Low biomass samples.

  • Contamination

  • Lack of standardized sampling methodology.

  • Need for longer-term and larger-scale sampling campaigns.

  • Poor understanding of potential atmospheric microbial ecosystems.

What is understood about…Level of understandingWhat is the evidence?What are the obstacles to our understanding?
1. The presence of microorganisms in the atmosphereHigh understanding
  • Cultured isolates from aerosol samples [35, 37, 38, 55, 56].

  • Molecular work (DNA and RNA detection) Reviewed in [4].

  • Intact cells visualized with microscopy [38, 57–59].

  • Low biomass samples.

  • Contamination

2. The role of the atmosphere as a dispersal mechanism only, or additionally as a habitat for a resident microbial community shaped by selection pressuresLow–medium understanding
  • Molecular work (mostly 16S rRNA and internal transcribed spacer (ITS) amplicon sequencing) confirms atmospheric distribution is strongly tied to surface sources [14, 15, 40–43].

  • Limited sample size.

  • Low biomass samples.

  • Contamination

  • Lack of standardized sampling methodology.

  • Poorly standardized cataloguing of environmental conditions from sampling locations.

3. The viability of microorganisms in the atmosphereLow–medium understanding
  • Culture-based growth confirms the presence of viable bioaerosols [35, 37, 55, 56].

  • Viability staining confirms the presence of viable cells after artificial aerosolization [60].

  • Fluorescence microscopy confirms that bioaerosols can have intact membranes after aerosolization [61].

  • Low biomass samples.

  • Contamination

  • Lack of standardized sampling methodology.

  • Difficulty mimicking atmospheric environmental conditions.

  • Lack of outdoor field studies.

  • Poorly standardized cataloguing of environmental conditions from sampling locations.

4. The in situ activity of atmospheric microorganismsLow understanding
  • Substrate-incubation of artificially aerosolized cells shows bioaerosols can metabolize while suspended [62–64].

  • Molecular work (metatranscriptomics) identifies potentially active taxa that contain relatively abundant RNA [65–67].

  • Fluorescent activity stains show that bioaerosols can stay active after aerosolization [61].

  • Low biomass samples.

  • Contamination

  • Lack of standardized sampling methodology.

  • Sampler interference on cell activity.

  • Poorly standardized cataloguing of environmental conditions from sampling locations.

  • Deficiency of activity measurements on outdoor field samples.

  • Unknown effects of residence time on survival and activity

5. The contribution of atmospheric microorganisms to atmospheric biogeochemical cyclesLow to noneNo clear evidenceSame as question 4.
6. The influence of climate change on atmosphere-dwelling microorganisms and their potential role in biogeochemical cyclingLow to noneNo clear evidence
  • Low biomass samples.

  • Contamination

  • Lack of standardized sampling methodology.

  • Need for longer-term and larger-scale sampling campaigns.

  • Poor understanding of potential atmospheric microbial ecosystems.

Untargeted shotgun metagenomics enables the assembly of microbial genomes of both known and unknown organisms. It provides genome-wide information about bacterial, archaeal, eukaryotic, and viral taxonomic diversity and metabolic capabilities, including a genetic basis for survival mechanisms. Though this approach has been advocated for use in atmospheric microbiology for some time [68], few studies have attempted metagenomics on atmospheric samples. Two dust and particulate matter studies have indicated that dust-associated communities harbour certain enriched genes, including UV-induced DNA damage repair, sporulation [69], and degradation of organic contaminants (e.g. benzoate and aminobenzoate) [70] compared to communities from the surrounding environment. These findings suggest adaptation to atmospheric conditions and imply that anthropogenic factors impact the atmospheric microbiome. Tignat-Perrier et al. sought to identify an atmosphere-specific functional signature by examining nine sites of different elevation and environment type [71]. While they discovered that stress response traits (sporulation, response to UV, oxidative stress, and desiccation) were, on average, more abundant in air compared to surrounding soil, seawater, or snow samples, there were no functions determined to be specific to atmospheric communities [71]. These aforementioned stress-tolerance genes largely corresponded to fungi, which were dominant in these air samples, leading the authors to speculate that fungi may survive atmospheric conditions better than bacteria [71]. There is a notable absence of atmospheric (especially nonurban) metagenomes in the literature. Furthermore, several additional studies that have generated metagenomic data have primarily reported taxonomic patterns, with no observations on functional capabilities [72–76]. Quality atmospheric metagenomics studies have the potential to fill the substantial knowledge voids outlined in Box 1, though it is vital to combine this with other methods and approaches. For example, it is unknown whether the abundance of traits such as sporulation and UV tolerance reflect an atmospheric lifestyle or an enrichment of contaminating organisms that are resistant to decontamination procedures. This a significant barrier to interpretation of atmospheric metagenomic studies that must be carefully and systematically addressed.

Metagenomic analysis of the atmosphere represents an exciting advance in quantifying atmospheric biodiversity and potential metabolic functions. However, the sensitive technique is a double-edged sword: molecular studies (both amplicon and metagenomic) of atmospheric microorganisms can be severely impacted by contaminating DNA [74, 76–80], the importance of which has been recognized as remarkably overlooked, dismissed, or minimally discussed in most studies [81, 82]. Cells or DNA originating from the sampling and handling personnel, equipment, laboratory reagents, or laboratory air can collectively contribute to contamination [77, 81], which is often a negligible issue for high-biomass samples but becomes increasingly confounding with low-biomass samples. Contamination in microbiome studies is a well-documented challenge that requires a high degree of care in sample collection and preparation (e.g. extensive protective personal equipment (PPE), decontamination, and clean laboratory practices), in combination with sufficient and relevant negative controls and transparent reporting of these procedures and their effectiveness [82–86]. When contamination controls are not described, it is very challenging to interpret how much or which aspects of a study’s findings relate to genuine biological signals, which, in turn, risks misinterpretation and inaccurate findings permeating the field. Importantly, combining molecular techniques with other methods such as microscopy, biogeochemical assays, or culture-based approaches is critical to validate and extend molecular findings and to expand our knowledge on microbial viability and activity in the atmosphere.

Evidence of activity in the largest but least explored microbial ecosystem

To begin to understand the potential ecosystem roles of atmospheric microorganisms, it is critical to examine microbial viability and activity in conjunction with recent insights on community structure offered by molecular approaches. Traditional aerobiology research has focused largely on the study of airborne pollen and fungal spores, and despite recent molecular advances in the field, evidence surrounding the activities and functions of atmospheric microorganisms is scarce (Table 1). Furthermore, there is a bias towards studying indoor air microbiomes relative to outdoor environments that limits our ecosystem-level knowledge of bioaerosols [87]. However, both early and more recent culture-based studies are providing a growing, though still limited, body of evidence for the metabolic activity of microorganisms in the atmosphere. Atmospheric microbiology began with 19th-century experiments by Pasteur, Tyndall, and others showing that viable microorganisms could be grown from the air [88]. In 1975, Dimmick et al.’s atomizer experiment suggested that aerosolized Serratia marcescens were capable of metabolizing glucose while suspended in the air, at 90%–95% relative humidity and 21°C [62]. This was seemingly the first study to establish that bacteria are not inactive when aerosolized, at least over short timescales. Similar studies have demonstrated low-affinity (1500 ppmv) methane oxidation by cells aerosolised from mixed cultures, as detected by 13C incorporation into DNA following incubation with 13CH4, [63] as well as volatile organic compound degradation by Sphingomonas aerolata, as observed indirectly by total cellular ribosomal RNA (rRNA) content [64]. Importantly, the survival and activity of aerosolised cultures depend substantially on the aerosolization technique due to its impact on membrane integrity [61].

Ice-nucleating bacteria such as the plant pathogen Pseudomonas syringae reside within clouds and have been known since the 1980s to directly contribute to their formation, a mechanism now widely accepted as a major driver of cloud formation [89–93]. However, organic particles, including bacteria without ice-nucleating capabilities and nonliving cells, can act as cloud condensation nuclei [34, 36, 89, 93], so it remains unresolved whether cloud formation is an active process mediated by the bacterium and whether bacteria-mediated cloud formation is substantial at a global scale. Multiple laboratory experiments suggest that microbial activity is sustained within clouds. Cloud-derived isolates degrade or transform organic compounds [35, 37, 55, 56] and produce adenosine triphosphate (ATP) [94]. One study to date has combined metagenomics with metatranscriptomics to explore potential microbial activities in clouds, reporting transcription of genes associated with oxidative stress tolerance mechanisms and metabolism of one-carbon compounds [65].

Outside the cloud habitat, some studies have directly detected cellular ATP in atmospheric samples, inferring the quantity of viable cells [38] and relative level of activity [95]. However, these measurements may fail to capture cellular ATP in spores and provide only a broad sample-wide estimate of total or bulk activity. Viability and vitality stains, in combination with fluorescence microscopy and fluorescence activated cell sorting (FACS), have also been used to quantify active or viable bioaerosols [60, 61, 96]. RNA-based ribosomal amplicon approaches have provided some molecular evidence for microbial activity and viability in atmosphere-dwelling communities, enabling a comparison of the “total” (DNA) and “active” (RNA) community fractions. This approach can highlight active taxa that are rare in the DNA-based community profile [66, 67], but require careful interpretation of “phantom” taxa that appear only in the active fraction.

While these important advances begin to address the survivability and potential functions of atmospheric bacteria, our current knowledge is largely based on indirect in vitro evidence of bacterial atmospheric activities and largely addresses their ability to become active once incubated under controlled conditions, rather than providing evidence for activity in their atmospheric habitat. Factors such as the type of sampling (liquid-based or dry), and the sample storage and processing conditions will impact measured cell activity. Furthermore, in situ conditions (e.g. humidity, wind speed, air temperature, UV) are poorly standardized and seldom collected continuously throughout sampling [97], and there is great need for community consensus in the minimum set of metadata that should accompany atmospheric samples. It remains challenging to reproduce the environment and potential interactions experienced by atmospheric microorganisms in the laboratory; thus, most studies have relied on culturable representatives of the atmospheric microbial community. This leaves an important gap in knowledge: like most other environmental microbiomes, a substantial portion of the atmospheric microbiome likely includes viable but nonculturable cells that are overlooked with common in vitro methods [98, 99].

Considerations for effectively capturing microorganisms from the atmosphere

Regardless of the research focus and downstream approach, characterizing accurate microbiological and ecological patterns from bioaerosols requires collection of sufficient biomass from the air: this is heavily influenced by sampling methodology, which remains poorly standardized in the field [78, 100]. Existing sampling technologies present unique contamination risks along the pipeline from collection to analysis, differing capacities to preserve cell vitality and viability [97, 101], and size distribution biases for captured bioaerosols [102]. No single protocol is sufficient for all research objectives that may have different priorities for sample quality (e.g. DNA sequencing compared to activity measurements), resulting in uncomfortable trade-offs between sampling rate, capture efficiency, storage medium, and importantly, financial cost: prompting smaller sample sizes and reduced power in an environment that is already sparse and highly stochastic in nature. Aerobiology sampling technologies are compared and reviewed in depth elsewhere in the literature [97, 102–104]; however, protocol optimization for outdoor bioaerosol samples, particularly in the context of measuring cell activity, remains poorly developed [87, 105]. Aerobiology researchers should clearly detail sampling equipment and methods [97], informing robust benchmarking studies to improve inter-study comparability and expedite methodological innovations. Sampling parameters will have significant impacts on cellular properties measured by downstream analyses, and ultimately our capacity to answer fundamental questions (Box 1) where informed, tailored methodological choices must be made with available technologies.

Summary

There remain many unknowns about life in our ocean of air. Our conception of the atmosphere as an active microbial ecosystem will lead to significant advances in our understanding of one of Earth’s largest but least explored ecosystems, how it interacts with other major ecosystems on the planet, and how it contributes to global biogeochemical cycling and atmospheric processes. By increasing research efforts with greater temporal and spatial assessments of the atmosphere combined with stringent approaches, this new knowledge will assist us in predicting interactions between a changing climate and atmospheric life and provide valuable insights on the potential survivability of life on “thin air.”

Acknowledgements

R.L. is supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Award (DE230100542) and acknowledges support from the ARC SRIEAS Grant SR200100005 Securing Antarctica’s Environmental Future. J.B. acknowledges support from the CNRS Chaires de Professeur Junior (CPJ). J.G. acknowledges support from the CIFAR Global Azrieli scholars program. C.G. acknowledges support from the National Health and Medical Research Council (Emerging Leader Fellowship APP1178715).

Conflicts of interest

None declared.

Funding

We acknowledge funding from the Human Frontier Science Program (RGY0058/2022 to J.G., C.G., E.T.R., and J.B.).

Data availability

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

References

1.

West
JB
.
Torricelli and the ocean of air: the first measurement of barometric pressure
.
Physiology
2013
;
28
:
66
73
. https://doi.org/10.1152/physiol.00053.2012

2.

Womack
AM
,
Bohannan
BJM
,
Green
JL
.
Biodiversity and biogeography of the atmosphere
.
Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci
2010
;
365
:
3645
53
. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0283

3.

Tastassa
AC
,
Sharaby
Y
,
Lang-Yona
N
.
Aeromicrobiology: a global review of the cycling and relationships of bioaerosols with the atmosphere
.
Sci Total Environ
2024
;
912
:168478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168478

4.

Šantl-Temkiv
T
,
Amato
P
,
Casamayor
EO
et al.
Microbial ecology of the atmosphere
.
FEMS Microbiol Rev
2022
;
46
:
fuac009
. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsre/fuac009

5.

Smets
W
,
Moretti
S
,
Denys
S
et al.
Airborne bacteria in the atmosphere: presence, purpose, and potential
.
Atmos Environ
2016
;
139
:
214
21
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.05.038

6.

Barberán
A
,
Henley
J
,
Fierer
N
et al.
Structure, inter-annual recurrence, and global-scale connectivity of airborne microbial communities
.
Sci Total Environ
2014
;
487
:
187
95
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.04.030

7.

Amato
P
,
Mathonat
F
,
Nuñez Lopez
L
et al.
The aeromicrobiome: the selective and dynamic outer-layer of the Earth’s microbiome
.
Front Microbiol
2023
;
14
:
1186847
. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1186847

8.

Bar-On
YM
,
Phillips
R
,
Milo
R
.
The biomass distribution on earth
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
2018
;
115
:
6506
11
. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1711842115

9.

Burrows
SM
,
Elbert
W
,
Lawrence
MG
et al.
Bacteria in the global atmosphere – part 1: review and synthesis of literature data for different ecosystems
.
Atmos Chem Phys
2009
;
9
:
9263
80
. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-9263-2009

10.

Flemming
H-C
,
Wuertz
S
.
Bacteria and archaea on earth and their abundance in biofilms
.
Nat Rev Microbiol
2019
;
17
:
247
60
. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-019-0158-9

11.

Senatore
V
,
Zarra
T
,
Buonerba
A
et al.
Indoor versus outdoor transmission of SARS-COV-2: environmental factors in virus spread and underestimated sources of risk
.
Euro-Mediterr J Environ Integr
2021
;
6
:
30
. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41207-021-00243-w

12.

Meyer
M
,
Cox
JA
,
Hitchings
MDT
et al.
Quantifying airborne dispersal routes of pathogens over continents to safeguard global wheat supply
.
Nat Plants
2017
;
3
:
780
6
. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-017-0017-5

13.

Fröhlich-Nowoisky
J
,
Kampf
CJ
,
Weber
B
et al.
Bioaerosols in the earth system: climate, health, and ecosystem interactions
.
Atmos Res
2016
;
182
:
346
76
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2016.07.018

14.

Mayol
E
,
Arrieta
JM
,
Jiménez
MA
et al.
Long-range transport of airborne microbes over the global tropical and subtropical ocean
.
Nat Commun
2017
;
8
:
201
. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-00110-9

15.

Smith
DJ
,
Timonen
HJ
,
Jaffe
DA
et al.
Intercontinental dispersal of bacteria and archaea by transpacific winds
.
Appl Environ Microbiol
2013
;
79
:
1134
9
. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.03029-12

16.

Burrows
SM
,
Butler
T
,
Jöckel
P
et al.
Bacteria in the global atmosphere – part 2: Modeling of emissions and transport between different ecosystems
.
Atmos Chem Phys
2009
;
9
:
9281
97
. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-9281-2009

17.

De Wit
R
,
Bouvier
T
.
‘Everything is everywhere, but, the environment selects’; what did baas Becking and Beijerinck really say?
Environ Microbiol
2006
;
8
:
755
8
. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2006.01017.x

18.

Barbour
KM
,
Barron Sandoval
A
,
Walters
KE
et al.
Towards quantifying microbial dispersal in the environment
.
Environ Microbiol
2023
;
25
:
137
42
. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.16270

19.

O’Malley
MA
.
‘Everything is everywhere: but the environment selects’: ubiquitous distribution and ecological determinism in microbial biogeography
.
Stud Hist Philos Sci Part C Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci
2008
;
39
:
314
25
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2008.06.005

20.

Lowe
WH
,
McPeek
MA
.
Is dispersal neutral?
Trends Ecol Evol
2014
;
29
:
444
50
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.05.009

21.

Rothschild
LJ
,
Mancinelli
RL
.
Life in extreme environments
.
Nature
2001
;
409
:
1092
101
. https://doi.org/10.1038/35059215

22.

Mykytczuk
NCS
,
Foote
SJ
,
Omelon
CR
et al.
Bacterial growth at −15 °C; molecular insights from the permafrost bacterium Planococcus halocryophilus Or1
.
ISME J
2013
;
7
:
1211
26
. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2013.8

23.

Bakermans
C
,
Skidmore
M
.
Microbial respiration in ice at subzero temperatures (−4°C to −33°C)
.
Environ Microbiol Rep
2011
;
3
:
774
82
. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-2229.2011.00298.x

24.

Goordial
J
,
Lamarche-Gagnon
G
,
Lay
C-Y
et al. Left out in the cold: life in cryoenvironments. In:
Seckbach
J.
,
Oren
A.
,
Stan-Lotter
H.
(eds.),
Polyextremophiles: Life under Multiple Forms of Stress
.
Netherlands, Dordrecht
:
Springer
,
2013
,
335
63
.

25.

Bradley
JA
,
Arndt
S
,
Amend
JP
et al.
Widespread energy limitation to life in global subseafloor sediments
.
Sci Adv
2020
;
6
:
eaba0697
. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba0697

26.

Mattimore
V
,
Battista
JR
.
Radioresistance of Deinococcus radiodurans: functions necessary to survive ionizing radiation are also necessary to survive prolonged desiccation
.
J Bacteriol
1996
;
178
:
633
7
. https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.178.3.633-637.1996

27.

Bay
SK
,
Waite
DW
,
Dong
X
et al.
Chemosynthetic and photosynthetic bacteria contribute differentially to primary production across a steep desert aridity gradient
.
ISME J
2021
;
15
:
3339
56
. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-021-01001-0

28.

Ortiz
M
,
Leung
PM
,
Shelley
G
et al.
Multiple energy sources and metabolic strategies sustain microbial diversity in Antarctic desert soils
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
2021
;
118
:
e2025322118
. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2025322118

29.

Tveit
AT
,
Hestnes
AG
,
Robinson
SL
et al.
Widespread soil bacterium that oxidizes atmospheric methane
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
2019
;
116
:
8515
24
. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1817812116

30.

Greening
C
,
Grinter
R
.
Microbial oxidation of atmospheric trace gases
.
Nat Rev Microbiol
2022
;
20
:
513
28
. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-022-00724-x

31.

Goordial
J
,
Davila
A
,
Lacelle
D
et al.
Nearing the cold-arid limits of microbial life in permafrost of an upper dry valley, Antarctica
.
ISME J
2016
;
10
:
1613
24
. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2015.239

32.

Cockell
CS
.
Are microorganisms everywhere they can be?
Environ Microbiol
2021
;
23
:
6355
63
. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.15825

33.

Dragone
NB
,
Diaz
MA
,
Hogg
ID
et al.
Exploring the boundaries of microbial habitability in soil
.
J Geophys Res Biogeosci
2021
;
126
:
e2020JG006052
. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JG006052

34.

Amato
P
,
Joly
M
,
Schaupp
C
et al.
Survival and ice nucleation activity of bacteria as aerosols in a cloud simulation chamber
.
Atmos Chem Phys
2015
;
15
:
6455
65
. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-6455-2015

35.

Amato
P
,
Ménager
M
,
Sancelme
M
et al.
Microbial population in cloud water at the Puy de Dôme: implications for the chemistry of clouds
.
Atmos Environ
2005
;
39
:
4143
53
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.04.002

36.

Bauer
H
,
Giebl
H
,
Hitzenberger
R
et al.
Airborne bacteria as cloud condensation nuclei
.
J Geophys Res Atmos
2003
;
108
:
4658
. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JD003545

37.

Vaïtilingom
M
,
Amato
P
,
Sancelme
M
et al.
Contribution of microbial activity to carbon chemistry in clouds
.
Appl Environ Microbiol
2010
;
76
:
23
9
. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01127-09

38.

Bryan
NC
,
Christner
BC
,
Guzik
TG
et al.
Abundance and survival of microbial aerosols in the troposphere and stratosphere
.
ISME J
2019
;
13
:
2789
99
. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-019-0474-0

39.

Margesin
R
,
Collins
T
.
Microbial ecology of the cryosphere (glacial and permafrost habitats): current knowledge
.
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol
2019
;
103
:
2537
49
. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-019-09631-3

40.

Tignat-Perrier
R
,
Dommergue
A
,
Thollot
A
et al.
Global airborne microbial communities controlled by surrounding landscapes and wind conditions
.
Sci Rep
2019
;
9
:
14441
. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-51073-4

41.

Šantl-Temkiv
T
,
Gosewinkel
U
,
Starnawski
P
et al.
Aeolian dispersal of bacteria in Southwest Greenland: their sources, abundance, diversity and physiological states
.
FEMS Microbiol Ecol
2018
;
94
:
fiy031
.

42.

Cáliz
J
,
Triadó-Margarit
X
,
Camarero
L
et al.
A long-term survey unveils strong seasonal patterns in the airborne microbiome coupled to general and regional atmospheric circulations
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
2018
;
115
:
12229
34
. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1812826115

43.

Lang-Yona
N
,
Flores
JM
,
Haviv
R
et al.
Terrestrial and marine influence on atmospheric bacterial diversity over the North Atlantic and Pacific oceans
.
Commun Earth Environ
2022
;
3
:
1
10
. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00441-6

44.

Fierer
N
,
Liu
Z
,
Rodríguez-Hernández
M
et al.
Short-term temporal variability in airborne bacterial and fungal populations
.
Appl Environ Microbiol
2008
;
74
:
200
7
. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01467-07

45.

Bowers
RM
,
Clements
N
,
Emerson
JB
et al.
Seasonal variability in bacterial and fungal diversity of the near-surface atmosphere
.
Environ Sci Technol
2013
;
47
:
12097
106
. https://doi.org/10.1021/es402970s

46.

Tignat-Perrier
R
,
Dommergue
A
,
Thollot
A
et al.
Seasonal shift in airborne microbial communities
.
Sci Total Environ
2020
;
716
:137129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137129

47.

Wehking
J
,
Pickersgill
DA
,
Bowers
RM
et al.
Community composition and seasonal changes of archaea in coarse and fine air particulate matter
.
Biogeosciences
2018
;
15
:
4205
14
. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-4205-2018

48.

Jensen
LZ
,
Glasius
M
,
Gryning
S-E
et al.
Seasonal variation of the atmospheric bacterial Community in the Greenlandic High Arctic is influenced by weather events and local and distant sources
.
Front Microbiol
2022
;
13
:909980. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.909980

49.

Amato
P
,
Joly
M
,
Besaury
L
et al.
Active microorganisms thrive among extremely diverse communities in cloud water
.
PLoS One
2017
;
12
:e0182869. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182869

50.

Griffin
DW
,
Gonzalez-Martin
C
,
Hoose
C
et al. Global-scale atmospheric dispersion of microorganisms. In: Delort A-M, Amato P (eds.),
Microbiology of Aerosols
.
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
, Hoboken, NJ, USA,
2017
,
155
94
.

51.

Malard
LA
,
Pearce
DA
.
Bacterial colonisation: from airborne dispersal to integration within the soil community
.
Front Microbiol
2022
;
13
:782789. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.782789

52.

Malard
LA
,
Avila-Jimenez
M-L
,
Schmale
J
et al.
Aerobiology over the Southern Ocean – implications for bacterial colonization of Antarctica
.
Environ Int
2022
;
169
:107492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2022.107492

53.

Abellan-Schneyder
I
,
Matchado
MS
,
Reitmeier
S
et al.
Primer, pipelines, parameters: issues in 16S rRNA gene sequencing
.
mSphere
2021
;
6
:
e01202
20
.

54.

Thompson
LR
,
Sanders
JG
,
McDonald
D
et al.
A communal catalogue reveals Earth’s multiscale microbial diversity
.
Nature
2017
;
551
:
457
63
. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24621

55.

Amato
P
,
Demeer
F
,
Melaouhi
A
et al.
A fate for organic acids, formaldehyde and methanol in cloud water: their biotransformation by micro-organisms
.
Atmos Chem Phys
2007
;
7
:
4159
69
. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-4159-2007

56.

Sattler
B
,
Puxbaum
H
,
Psenner
R
.
Bacterial growth in supercooled cloud droplets
.
Geophys Res Lett
2001
;
28
:
239
42
. https://doi.org/10.1029/2000GL011684

57.

DeLeon-Rodriguez
N
,
Lathem
TL
,
Rodriguez-R
LM
et al.
Microbiome of the upper troposphere: species composition and prevalence, effects of tropical storms, and atmospheric implications
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
2013
;
110
:
2575
80
. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212089110

58.

Smith
DJ
,
Jaffe
DA
,
Birmele
MN
et al.
Free tropospheric transport of microorganisms from Asia to North America
.
Microb Ecol
2012
;
64
:
973
85
. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-012-0088-9

59.

Hu
W
,
Murata
K
,
Fan
C
et al.
Abundance and viability of particle-attached and free-floating bacteria in dusty and nondusty air
.
Biogeosciences
2020
;
17
:
4477
87
. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-4477-2020

60.

Chen
P-S
,
Li
C-S
.
Bioaerosol characterization by flow cytometry with fluorochrome
.
J Environ Monit
2005
;
7
:
950
9
. https://doi.org/10.1039/b505224f

61.

Thomas
RJ
,
Webber
D
,
Hopkins
R
et al.
The cell membrane as a major site of damage during Aerosolization of Escherichia coli
.
Appl Environ Microbiol
2011
;
77
:
920
5
. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01116-10

62.

Dimmick
RL
,
Straat
PA
,
Wolochow
H
et al.
Evidence for metabolic activity of airborne bacteria
.
J Aerosol Sci
1975
;
6
:
387
93
. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-8502(75)90054-3

63.

Dillon
KP
,
Krumins
V
,
Deshpande
A
et al.
Characterization and DNA stable-isotope probing of Methanotrophic bioaerosols
.
Microbiol Spectr
2022
;
10
:
e03421
2
.

64.

Krumins
V
,
Mainelis
G
,
Kerkhof
LJ
et al.
Substrate-dependent rRNA production in an airborne bacterium
.
Environ Sci Technol Lett
2014
;
1
:
376
81
. https://doi.org/10.1021/ez500245y

65.

Amato
P
,
Besaury
L
,
Joly
M
et al.
Metatranscriptomic exploration of microbial functioning in clouds
.
Sci Rep
2019
;
9
:
4383
. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-41032-4

66.

Klein
AM
,
Bohannan
BJM
,
Jaffe
DA
et al.
Molecular evidence for metabolically active bacteria in the atmosphere
.
Front Microbiol
2016
;
7
:
772
. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00772

67.

Womack
AM
,
Artaxo
PE
,
Ishida
FY
et al.
Characterization of active and total fungal communities in the atmosphere over the Amazon rainforest
.
Biogeosciences
2015
;
12
:
6337
49
. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-6337-2015

68.

Behzad
H
,
Gojobori
T
,
Mineta
K
.
Challenges and opportunities of airborne metagenomics
.
Genome Biol Evol
2015
;
7
:
1216
26
. https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evv064

69.

Aalismail
NA
,
Ngugi
DK
,
Díaz-Rúa
R
et al.
Functional metagenomic analysis of dust-associated microbiomes above the Red Sea
.
Sci Rep
2019
;
9
:
13741
. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-50194-0

70.

Gat
D
,
Zimmermann
R
,
Rudich
Y
.
Functional genes profile of atmospheric dust in the East Mediterranean suggests widespread anthropogenic influence on aerobiome composition
.
J Geophys Res Biogeosci
2022
;
127
:
e2022JG007022
. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JG007022

71.

Tignat-Perrier
R
,
Dommergue
A
,
Thollot
A
et al.
Microbial functional signature in the atmospheric boundary layer
.
Biogeosciences
2020
;
17
:
6081
95
. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-6081-2020

72.

Gusareva
ES
,
Acerbi
E
,
Lau
KJX
et al.
Microbial communities in the tropical air ecosystem follow a precise diel cycle
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
2019
;
116
:
23299
308
. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1908493116

73.

Gusareva
ES
,
Gaultier
NPE
,
Premkrishnan
BNV
et al.
Taxonomic composition and seasonal dynamics of the air microbiome in West Siberia
.
Sci Rep
2020
;
10
:
21515
. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-78604-8

74.

Drautz-Moses
DI
,
Luhung
I
,
Gusareva
ES
et al.
Vertical stratification of the air microbiome in the lower troposphere
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
2022
;
119
:e2117293119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2117293119

75.

Cao
C
,
Jiang
W
,
Wang
B
et al.
Inhalable microorganisms in Beijing’s PM2.5 and PM10 pollutants during a severe smog event
.
Environ Sci Technol
2014
;
48
:
1499
507
. https://doi.org/10.1021/es4048472

76.

Jaing
C
,
Thissen
J
,
Morrison
M
et al.
Sierra Nevada sweep: metagenomic measurements of bioaerosols vertically distributed across the troposphere
.
Sci Rep
2020
;
10
:
12399
. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-69188-4

77.

Archer
S
,
Lee
K
,
Caruso
T
et al.
Global Biogeography of Atmospheric Microorganisms Reflects Diverse Recruitment and Environmental filtering
. Preprint (version 4), available at
Research Square
,
2022
. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-244923/v4

78.

Dommergue
A
,
Amato
P
,
Tignat-Perrier
R
et al.
Methods to investigate the global atmospheric microbiome
.
Front Microbiol
2019
;
10
:
243
. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.00243

79.

Berera
A
,
Brener
DJ
,
Cockell
CS
.
Detecting microbiology in the upper atmosphere: relative-velocity filtered sampling
.
Astrobiology
2023
;
23
:
469
75
. https://doi.org/10.1089/ast.2022.0045

80.

Smith
DJ
,
Ravichandar
JD
,
Jain
S
et al.
Airborne bacteria in Earth’s lower stratosphere resemble taxa detected in the troposphere: results from a new NASA aircraft bioaerosol collector (ABC)
.
Front Microbiol
2018
;
9
:
1752
. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.01752

81.

Smith
DJ
,
Griffin
DW
.
Inadequate methods and questionable conclusions in atmospheric life study
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
2013
;
110
:
E2084
4
.

82.

Eisenhofer
R
,
Minich
JJ
,
Marotz
C
et al.
Contamination in low microbial biomass microbiome studies: issues and recommendations
.
Trends Microbiol
2019
;
27
:
105
17
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2018.11.003

83.

de Goffau
MC
,
Lager
S
,
Salter
SJ
et al.
Recognizing the reagent microbiome
.
Nat Microbiol
2018
;
3
:
851
3
. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-018-0202-y

84.

Salter
SJ
,
Cox
MJ
,
Turek
EM
et al.
Reagent and laboratory contamination can critically impact sequence-based microbiome analyses
.
BMC Biol
2014
;
12
:
87
. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-014-0087-z

85.

Weyrich
LS
,
Farrer
AG
,
Eisenhofer
R
et al.
Laboratory contamination over time during low-biomass sample analysis
.
Mol Ecol Resour
2019
;
19
:
982
96
. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13011

86.

Minich
JJ
,
Zhu
Q
,
Janssen
S
et al.
KatharoSeq enables high-throughput microbiome analysis from low-biomass samples
.
mSystems
2018
;
3
:
e00218
7
. https://doi.org/10.1128/mSystems.00218-17

87.

Ruiz-Gil
T
,
Acuña
JJ
,
Fujiyoshi
S
et al.
Airborne bacterial communities of outdoor environments and their associated influencing factors
.
Environ Int
2020
;
145
:106156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106156

88.

Conant
JB
. Pasteur’s and Tyndall’s study of spontaneous generation. In: Conant JB (ed.),
Harvard Case Histories in Experimental Science
.
Cambridge, Massachusetts
:
Harvard University Press
,
1957
,
489
539
.

89.

Sun
J
,
Ariya
PA
.
Atmospheric organic and bio-aerosols as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN): a review
.
Atmos Environ
2006
;
40
:
795
820
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.05.052

90.

Després
VR
,
Huffman
JA
,
Burrows
SM
et al.
Primary biological aerosol particles in the atmosphere: a review
.
Tellus Ser B Chem Phys Meteorol
2012
;
64
:
15598
. https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusb.v64i0.15598

91.

Hamilton
WD
,
Lenton
TM
.
Spora and Gaia: how microbes fly with their clouds
.
Ethol Ecol Evol
1998
;
10
:
1
16
. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927014.1998.9522867

92.

Christner
BC
,
Morris
CE
,
Foreman
CM
et al.
Ubiquity of biological ice Nucleators in snowfall
.
Science
2008
;
319
:
1214
4
. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1149757

93.

Möhler
O
,
DeMott
PJ
,
Vali
G
et al.
Microbiology and atmospheric processes: the role of biological particles in cloud physics
.
Biogeosciences
2007
;
4
:
1059
71
. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-4-1059-2007

94.

Vaïtilingom
M
,
Deguillaume
L
,
Vinatier
V
et al.
Potential impact of microbial activity on the oxidant capacity and organic carbon budget in clouds
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
2013
;
110
:
559
64
. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1205743110

95.

Péguilhan
R
,
Besaury
L
,
Rossi
F
et al.
Rainfalls sprinkle cloud bacterial diversity while scavenging biomass
.
FEMS Microbiol Ecol
2021
;
97
:
fiab144
. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiab144

96.

Chang
C-W
,
Hung
P-Y
.
Evaluation of sampling techniques for detection and quantification of airborne legionellae at biological aeration basins and shower rooms
.
J Aerosol Sci
2012
;
48
:
63
74
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2012.02.003

97.

Mainelis
G
.
Bioaerosol sampling: classical approaches, advances, and perspectives
.
Aerosol Sci Technol
2020
;
54
:
496
519
. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2019.1671950

98.

Lennon
JT
,
Jones
SE
.
Microbial seed banks: the ecological and evolutionary implications of dormancy
.
Nat Rev Microbiol
2011
;
9
:
119
30
. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro2504

99.

Oliver
JD
.
Recent findings on the viable but nonculturable state in pathogenic bacteria
.
FEMS Microbiol Rev
2010
;
34
:
415
25
. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6976.2009.00200.x

100.

Pearce
DA
,
Alekhina
IA
,
Terauds
A
et al.
Aerobiology over Antarctica – a new initiative for atmospheric ecology
.
Front Microbiol
2016
;
7
:
16
. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00016

101.

Ferguson
RMW
,
Garcia-Alcega
S
,
Coulon
F
et al.
Bioaerosol biomonitoring: sampling optimization for molecular microbial ecology
.
Mol Ecol Resour
2019
;
19
:
672
90
. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13002

102.

Dybwad
M
,
Skogan
G
,
Blatny
JM
.
Comparative testing and evaluation of nine different air samplers: end-to-end sampling efficiencies as specific performance measurements for bioaerosol applications
.
Aerosol Sci Technol
2014
;
48
:
282
95
. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2013.871501

103.

Henningson
EW
,
Ahlberg
MS
.
Evaluation of microbiological aerosol samplers: a review
.
J Aerosol Sci
1994
;
25
:
1459
92
. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-8502(94)90219-4

104.

Haig
CW
,
Mackay
WG
,
Walker
JT
et al.
Bioaerosol sampling: sampling mechanisms, bioefficiency and field studies
.
J Hosp Infect
2016
;
93
:
242
55
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2016.03.017

105.

Can-Güven
E
.
The current status and future needs of global bioaerosol research: a bibliometric analysis
.
Int J Environ Sci Technol
2022
;
19
:
7857
68
. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-021-03683-7

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.