4.1 Article

Comparative study of bio-functional profile and bioactivities of polysaccharides from Ganoderma lucidum and Ganoderma neo- japonicum

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.bcab.2023.102875

Keywords

Ganoderma mushrooms; Bioactive compounds; Antioxidant; Antibacterial

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared the functional composition and bioactivities of Ganoderma lucidum and Ganoderma neo-japonicum and found that G. lucidum exhibited higher protein and phenolic compound content, as well as better antioxidant and antibacterial properties.
Although mushroom extracts are consumed as tea, comparative studies of the functional composition and bioactivities of Ganoderma species are limited. Herein, hot-water extracts of G. lucidum (GL) and G. neo-japonicum (GnJ) were obtained. The bio-functional composition, antioxidant, and antibacterial properties were compared. The extracts comprise comparable carbohydrate contents, but GL contains significantly higher (P < 0.05) protein and phenolic compounds, and lower flavonoids. FTIR confirmed polysaccharides; beta-glucans and mannose, protein, and fat as the main composition. Monosaccharides included glucose, galactose, and mannose. GL exhibited 403.9 +/- 4.8 FRAP value/1g, a maximum DPPH scavenging ability of 52.1% at 5 mg/mL, and 99.6% ABTS scavenging ability at 3 mg/mL. Whereas GnJ has a FRAP value of 181.113.5 and maximum scavenging of 27.9% on DPPH and 76.0% on ABTS at 5 mg/mL. The minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of GL on Salmonella typhimurium TISTR 292, Salmonella Enteritidis KUB-S003, and Escherichia coli KUB-E010 were 1.25 mg/mL to 2.5 mg/mL, while GnJ MICs on the pathogens were 2.5 mg/mL to 5 mg/mL. SEM showed that both extracts acted by causing cell lysis and shrinkages of the cell walls of these pathogens. When compared to G. lucidum, G. neo- japonicum showed remarkable antibacterial and antioxidant properties.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available