4.7 Article

Effects of trophism on nutritional and nutraceutical potential of wild edible mushrooms

Journal

FOOD RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
Volume 44, Issue 4, Pages 1029-1035

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2011.03.006

Keywords

Edible mushrooms; Saprotrophic; Mycorrhizal; Nutrients; Nutraceuticals

Funding

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia (FCT, Portugal)
  2. COMPETE/QREN/EU [PTDC/AGR-AU/110062/2009]
  3. FCT [SFRH/BPD/4609/2008, SFRH/BD/70304/2010]
  4. FSE
  5. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/70304/2010] Funding Source: FCT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Consumption of wild growing mushrooms has been preferred to eating of cultivated fungi in many countries of central and Eastern Europe. Nevertheless, the knowledge of the nutritional value of wild growing mushrooms is limited. The present study reports the effects of trophism on mushrooms nutritional and nutraceutical potential. In vitro antioxidant properties of five saprotrophic (Calvatia utriformis, Clitopilus prunulus, Lycoperdon echinatum, Lyophyllum decastes, and Macrolepiota excoriata) and five mycorrhizal (Boletus erythropus, Boletus fragrans, Hygrophorus pustulatus, Russula cyanoxantha, and Russula olivacea) wild edible mushrooms were accessed and compared to individual compounds identified by chromatographic techniques. Mycorrhizal species revealed higher sugars concentration (16-42 g/100 g dw) than the saprotrophic mushrooms (0.4-15 g/100 g). Furthermore, fructose was found only in mycorrhizal species (0.2-2 g/100 g). The saprotrophic L decastes, and the mycorrhizal species B. erythropus and B. fragrans gave the highest antioxidant potential, mainly due to the contribution of polar antioxidants such as phenolics and sugars. The bioactive compounds found in wild mushrooms give scientific evidence to traditional edible and medicinal uses of these species. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available