4.5 Article

Cultivation and utility of Piptoporus betulinus fruiting bodies as a source of anticancer agents

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11274-016-2114-4

关键词

Anticancer activity; Cultivation; Fruiting body; Piptoporus betulinus

资金

  1. National Centre for Research and Development [KB/46/13110/IT1-B/U/08]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Piptoporus betulinus is a wood-rotting basidiomycete used in medicine and biotechnology. However, to date, no indoor method for cultivation of this mushroom fruiting bodies has been developed. Here we present the first report of successful production of P. betulinus mature fruiting bodies in artificial conditions. Four P. betulinus strains were isolated from natural habitats and their mycelia were inoculated into birch sawdust substrate supplemented with organic additives. All the strains effectively colonized the medium but only one of them produced fruiting bodies. Moisture and organic supplementation of the substrate significantly determined the fruiting process. The biological efficiency of the P. betulinus PB01 strain cultivated on optimal substrate (moisture and organic substance content of 55 and 65 and 25 or 35 %, respectively) ranged from 12 to 16 %. The mature fruiting bodies reached weight in the range from 50 to 120 g. Anticancer properties of water and ethanol extracts isolated from both cultured and nature-derived fruiting bodies of P. betulinus were examined in human colon adenocarcinoma, human lung carcinoma and human breast cancer cell lines. The studies revealed antiproliferative and antimigrative properties of all the investigated extracts. Nevertheless the most pronounced effects demonstrated the ethanol extracts, obtained from fruiting bodies of cultured P. betulinus. Summarizing, our studies proved that P. betulinus can be induced to fruit in indoor artificial culture and the cultured fruiting bodies can be used as a source of potential anticancer agents. In this respect, they are at least as valuable as those sourced from nature.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据