METHODS: We collected classroom dust from 24 junior high schools in three geographically distanced areas in Malaysia (Johor Bahru, Terengganu and Penang), and conducted culture-independent high-throughput microbiome and untargeted metabolomics/chemical profiling.
RESULTS: 1290 students were surveyed for asthma symptoms (wheeze). In each centre, we found significant variation in the prevalence of wheeze among schools, which could be explained by personal characteristics and air pollutants. Large-scale microbial variations were observed between the three centres; the potential protective bacteria were mainly from phyla Actinobacteria in Johor Bahru, Cyanobacteria in Terengganu and Proteobacteria in Penang. In total, 2633 metabolites and chemicals were characterised. Many metabolites were enriched in low-wheeze schools, including plant secondary metabolites flavonoids/isoflavonoids (isoliquiritigenin, formononetin, astragalin), indole and derivatives (indole, serotonin, 1H-indole-3-carboxaldehyde), and others (biotin, chavicol). A neural network analysis showed that the indole derivatives were co-occurring with the potential protective microbial taxa, including Actinomycetospora, Fischerella and Truepera, suggesting these microorganisms may pose health effects by releasing indole metabolites. A few synthetic chemicals were enriched in high-wheeze schools, including pesticides (2(3H)-benzothiazolethione), fragrances (2-aminobenzoic acid, isovaleric acid), detergents and plastics (phthalic acid), and industrial materials (4,4-sulfonyldiphenol).
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first association study between high-throughput indoor chemical profiling and asthma symptoms. The consistent results from the three centres indicate that indoor metabolites/chemicals could be a better indicator than the indoor microbiome for environmental and health assessments, providing new insights for asthma prediction, prevention and control.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study in a tertiary hospital in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia involved parents of children with asthma. Parents of children without asthma were the control group. Eleven validated video clips showing wheeze, stridor, transmitted noises, snoring or normal breathing were shown to the parents. Parents were asked, in English or Malay, "What do you call the sound this child is making?" and "Where do you think the sound is coming from?"
RESULTS: Two hundred parents participated in this study: 100 had children with asthma while 100 did not. Most (71.5 %) answered in Malay. Only 38.5 % of parents correctly labelled wheeze. Parents were significantly better at locating than labelling wheeze (OR 2.4, 95 % CI 1.64-3.73). Parents with asthmatic children were not better at labelling wheeze than those without asthma (OR1.04, 95 % CI 0.59-1.84). Answering in English (OR 3.4, 95 % CI 1.69-7.14) and having older children with asthma (OR 9.09, 95 % CI 3.13-26.32) were associated with correct labelling of wheeze. Other sounds were mislabelled as wheeze by 16.5 % of respondents.
CONCLUSION: Parental labelling of wheeze was inaccurate especially in the Malay language. Parents were better at identifying the origin of wheeze rather than labelling it. Physicians should be wary about parental reporting of wheeze as it may be inaccurate.