|
Solipsis
m̶a̶d̶ disappointed scientist


Registered: 12/28/09
Posts: 3,398
Loc: the Neitherlands
Last seen: 5 months, 18 days
|
Re: Original images of discussed specimen [Re: Mycoactive]
#26677283 - 05/17/20 05:01 PM (3 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Interesting!
So wiki on luteofolius seems to make assumptions.
Stamets said in Psilocybin mushrooms around the world (the name is ironic here) that 10 species of Gym are known to be 'psilocybin-active' according to literature study by Allen & Gartz 92. Luteofolius he goes on to say, should probably be added to the list according to him, because it is "active" but he did not explicitly say psilocybin.
Alpha-pyrones are thought to give effects like kavalactones from kava kava, right?
If 'colors were seen' then maybe that is a red herring. So if psilocybin has not been found in luteofolius I assume also no psilocin, right?
Afaik thiersii only differs in its spores, but of course that is macroscopically - who really knows what goes on chemically.
Why i mainly post and what's a little confusing to me is the claim that European strains are 'not active'. I don't know if this means in terms of interesting tryptamines or also alpha-pyrones (at least apparently)?
I am glad these species are there, they are so beautiful. But i wish i knew the origin of my luteofolius and thiersii xD.
|
Hunter hunter
See er


Registered: 04/02/14
Posts: 2,845
Loc: Pickin yer patch
|
Re: Original images of discussed specimen [Re: Solipsis]
#27035953 - 11/12/20 08:51 PM (3 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Bump. Saving this for later. Continue on
--------------------
Eat the meat that’s at your feet.
|
mycot
Crazy as fuck


Registered: 05/31/06
Posts: 1,112
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 1 month, 5 days
|
Re: Active Gymnopilus luteofolius from California contains no Psilocybin, study shows [Re: Alan Rockefeller]
#27068143 - 12/02/20 12:45 PM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alan Rockefeller said: In the west there are two species which look similar - Gymnopilus thiersii, which stains green and is weakly active (adose is 10 - 20 dry grams), and G. dilepis, which is inactive.
G. dilepis was almost certainly the species that was tested in the linked Erowid article.
I'm not so sure. As far as I can make out there seem to be two G.delepis sequences.
ITS – GenBank #MG937798 associated with MO 237083 and ITS – GenBank #MH185801 associated with MO 314289 Both of these have been associated with bluing. the first directly in the comments and the second indirectly through Mushroom observation 356154
With this implied activity one almost suspects a third culprit.
Edited by mycot (12/04/20 05:47 PM)
|
Alan Rockefeller
Mycologist

Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,276
Last seen: 1 hour, 8 minutes
|
Re: Active Gymnopilus luteofolius from California contains no Psilocybin, study shows [Re: mycot]
#27070944 - 12/03/20 11:17 PM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Those two sequences are only 2 nucleotides apart - that might be significant, but G. thiersii for example is 22 nucleotides apart from G. dilepis. It would help to study more collections to see if any macroscopic or microscopic differences can be noted between the two phylotypes, and also to check to see if the sequences form well defined clades, or tend to intergrade.
I did microscopy on MO#314289 and it did have the ventricose cheilocystidia typical of G. dilepis, without the capitate apices seen in G. thiersii/luteofolius.
|
mycot
Crazy as fuck


Registered: 05/31/06
Posts: 1,112
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 1 month, 5 days
|
Re: Active Gymnopilus luteofolius from California contains no Psilocybin, study shows [Re: Alan Rockefeller]
#27072296 - 12/04/20 05:32 PM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alan Rockefeller said: Those two sequences are only 2 nucleotides apart - that might be significant, but G. thiersii for example is 22 nucleotides apart from G. dilepis. It would help to study more collections to see if any macroscopic or microscopic differences can be noted between the two phylotypes, and also to check to see if the sequences form well defined clades, or tend to intergrade.
I did microscopy on MO#314289 and it did have the ventricose cheilocystidia typical of G. dilepis, without the capitate apices seen in G. thiersii/luteofolius.
In the general reading of sequences, how accurate is the technology, what type of error rate is there in the reading of base pairs? My own look at genbank nucleotides seem to imply a good error rate at times. Even if its out by only one or two base pairs in the usual sequence of approximately 800 base pairs its not uncommon.
Edited by mycot (12/04/20 05:56 PM)
|
Alan Rockefeller
Mycologist

Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,276
Last seen: 1 hour, 8 minutes
|
Re: Active Gymnopilus luteofolius from California contains no Psilocybin, study shows [Re: mycot]
#27072704 - 12/04/20 10:29 PM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mycot said: In the general reading of sequences, how accurate is the technology, what type of error rate is there in the reading of base pairs?
I've tried sequencing the same mushroom several times and always got the exact same sequence, so it's pretty accurate if the reads are clean. If they aren't and you have to guess as to what some of the bases are, it's less accurate. The data in Genbank is a mixture of accurate and non-accurate sequences, and I use the conserved 5.8s region which is between ITS1 and ITS2 (basically the middle 160 characters of a sequence) to infer how clean the read is.
Quote:
My own look at genbank nucleotides seem to imply a good error rate at times. Even if its out by only one or two base pairs in the usual sequence of approximately 800 base pairs its not uncommon.
Depends entirely on who uploaded the sequence and how well they processed them. The stuff I upload to Genbank is nearly error-free, and if there is an error I'll re-run the PCR or try a different sequencing primer, and just not upload it if it's not a good read. Other people will upload every piece of data they get. After a while you get to recognize the names of the sequence authors and know whose data to trust.
|
mycot
Crazy as fuck


Registered: 05/31/06
Posts: 1,112
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 1 month, 5 days
|
Re: Active Gymnopilus luteofolius from California contains no Psilocybin, study shows [Re: Alan Rockefeller]
#27072786 - 12/05/20 12:16 AM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Not critiquing your work. Just trying to understand things.
So in an example similar to your own where sequences differ by only a couple base pairs ;- Would this imply mutation, genetic variation within a species or separate species ?
Edited by mycot (12/05/20 02:48 AM)
|
Alan Rockefeller
Mycologist

Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,276
Last seen: 1 hour, 8 minutes
|
Re: Active Gymnopilus luteofolius from California contains no Psilocybin, study shows [Re: mycot]
#27074386 - 12/05/20 11:35 PM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
All differences in base pairs are mutations.
Sometimes there's significant variation in sequences in the same species, and other times it's always the same. Sometimes it's cryptic species.
To answer these questions it helps to have several sequences from several collections - then you can start looking at the collections and determine if the sequence differences translate to other differences.
If there's just a small sequence difference and you can't find anything else different, I'd just call it a variable sequence.
Sometimes small sequence differences correlate to observable macroscopic or microscopic differences, and then I'd call them different species or varieties.
|
|