|
Hartford
Lawful Good



Registered: 11/27/19
Posts: 1,106
Loc: Tennessee
|
Active Gymnopilus luteofolius from California contains no Psilocybin, study shows
#26611202 - 04/18/20 06:24 PM (3 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Samples of active gymnopilus lutefolius from Northern California have been proven to contain no psilocybin, according to the article on erowid that I just read.
https://www.erowid.org/plants/mushrooms/mushrooms_article9.shtml
That means it's legal to grow that variety, which is said to be weak, but active, nonetheless!
Is anyone familiar with this subspecies, where it can be found or knows someone who can get it? It seems like a nice kind of mushroom to grow on a large scale, if the effects are pleasant.
|
Je77Ce11ar



Registered: 01/09/19
Posts: 244
Last seen: 3 months, 17 days
|
Re: Active Gymnopilus luteofolius from California contains no Psilocybin, study shows [Re: Hartford] 1
#26617747 - 04/21/20 01:05 PM (3 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I just put some g. luteo spores to agar last night. Received the print from the PNW. I knew theyd be only slightly active, but hopefully theyre active nonetheless. Once I have it grown out and cleaned up, ill probably be offering them for sale/trade in the marketplace so keep an eye on that.
|
Alan Rockefeller
Mycologist

Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,276
Last seen: 1 hour, 32 minutes
|
Re: Active Gymnopilus luteofolius from California contains no Psilocybin, study shows [Re: Hartford] 3
#26619186 - 04/22/20 02:55 AM (3 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Gymnopilus luteofolius was described from New York, growing on birch. It probably doesn't occur in the west coast. I would really like to get a sample from birch on NY for DNA sequencing.
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.
I have sequenced quite a few collections of red capped Gymnopilus from California, and the sequences all fall into two clades. G. thiersii is larger and has capitate cheilocystidia, while G. dilepis is smaller, only found in wood chips and has ventricose cheilocystidia without expanded apices.
Gymnopilus thiersii cheilocystidia: https://images.mushroomobserver.org/1280/1000074.jpg
Phylogenetic tree showing my collections of G. dilepis (top) and G. thiersii (bottom): https://images.mushroomobserver.org/1280/720463.jpg
Gymnopilus dilepis DNA sequence: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MG937798 Gymnopilus thiersii DNA sequence: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH091711
G. dilepis was almost certainly the species that was tested in the linked Erowid article. I've linked Earth Erowid to this thread.
|
Je77Ce11ar



Registered: 01/09/19
Posts: 244
Last seen: 3 months, 17 days
|
Re: Active Gymnopilus luteofolius from California contains no Psilocybin, study shows [Re: Alan Rockefeller]
#26620178 - 04/22/20 02:44 PM (3 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Thanks Alan, any suggestions as to how i could determine definitively what I got? Unfortunately, I dont have any sequencing equipment or even a microscope. I'll try to contact the seller of the print and inquire about the phylogeny. If youd be willing, I could send you the sample culture and see what you determine?
|
Alan Rockefeller
Mycologist

Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,276
Last seen: 1 hour, 32 minutes
|
Re: Active Gymnopilus luteofolius from California contains no Psilocybin, study shows [Re: Je77Ce11ar]
#26620950 - 04/22/20 08:10 PM (3 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I already have a lot of stuff to sequence so I couldn't promise I can get sequencing results, I could scope some gill fragments though. Best bet would be to send a culture or cap to http://alvalab.es for ITS sequencing.
|
Alan Rockefeller
Mycologist

Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,276
Last seen: 1 hour, 32 minutes
|
Re: Active Gymnopilus luteofolius from California contains no Psilocybin, study shows [Re: Alan Rockefeller] 1
#26620956 - 04/22/20 08:12 PM (3 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Looks like there will be an update to the Erowid page:
|
Innoculatethewest
Stranger


Registered: 04/22/20
Posts: 4
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
|
|
Hey yall, here are some pics from the original specimen brought into question. This specimen was found in the wild in Portland Oregon. Has not been sequenced but were quite confident its lutefolius. The photos are of an a indoor cultivation from spores of the wild species. This is my first time posting here so let me know if those images come through. Alan thanks for the input and let me know if you want a print.



Edited by Innoculatethewest (04/22/20 11:15 PM)
|
Alan Rockefeller
Mycologist

Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,276
Last seen: 1 hour, 32 minutes
|
|
Unlikely to be G. luteofolius because that species was described from New York, growing on birch. If you have $20 on it, send it to alvalab.es for ITS sequencing. I would also be really interested to know what shape the cheilocystidia is.
|
Alan Rockefeller
Mycologist

Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,276
Last seen: 1 hour, 32 minutes
|
|
|
Innoculatethewest
Stranger


Registered: 04/22/20
Posts: 4
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
|
|
Nice! Ok I will send it in for sequencing. Will get the spores under a scope when I can.
|
Hartford
Lawful Good



Registered: 11/27/19
Posts: 1,106
Loc: Tennessee
|
Re: Active Gymnopilus luteofolius from California contains no Psilocybin, study shows [Re: Hartford]
#26623605 - 04/23/20 10:58 PM (3 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Wow! It's hard to believe these don't contain psilocybin, because look at the bluing! Are you sure they don't contain psilocybin? What are the effects like?
|
Je77Ce11ar



Registered: 01/09/19
Posts: 244
Last seen: 3 months, 17 days
|
Re: Active Gymnopilus luteofolius from California contains no Psilocybin, study shows [Re: Hartford]
#26623658 - 04/23/20 11:39 PM (3 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Its not a question of if they contain psil. Its a matter of possible misidentification.
If they are indeed thiersii, theyd be way less potent than cubes...ive read 15-20g would be a normal trip.
Thank you Allen for that link!!
|
Alan Rockefeller
Mycologist

Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,276
Last seen: 1 hour, 32 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Innoculatethewest said: Nice! Ok I will send it in for sequencing. Will get the spores under a scope when I can.
Spores are io too heopfil in this case, it's the shape of the cheilocystidia that we need to know.
|
DdaShroom
Wanna Be TI & Friend


Registered: 05/16/19
Posts: 584
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
|
|
Would this indicate that there are:
A) Gymnopilus luteofolius out there that contain psylobin and Gymnopilus luteofolius that do not contain any at all?
B) All Gymnopilus luteofolius contain a hallucinogenic compound that isnt psilocybin? A new psychadelic compound?
C) Something else entirely?
|
Alan Rockefeller
Mycologist

Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,276
Last seen: 1 hour, 32 minutes
|
Re: Original images of discussed specimen [Re: DdaShroom] 2
#26670009 - 05/14/20 05:05 AM (3 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
A is unlikely, B is likely and C is certain.
|
DdaShroom
Wanna Be TI & Friend


Registered: 05/16/19
Posts: 584
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
Alan Rockefeller said: A is unlikely, B is likely and C is certain.
What would that compound be? From what I'm reading, thiersii may be what is in question. The thiersii in question also contain no psilocybin, but is still active somehow?
|
poisoned
untitled



Registered: 04/17/13
Posts: 1,738
Loc: Yurop
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
|
Re: Original images of discussed specimen [Re: DdaShroom]
#26676131 - 05/17/20 02:49 AM (3 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
It's probably B but with a known compound. Like baeocystin
|
Mycoactive
Scientist


Registered: 11/20/19
Posts: 185
Last seen: 26 days, 23 hours
|
Re: Original images of discussed specimen [Re: poisoned]
#26676479 - 05/17/20 08:36 AM (3 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
A few Gym species contain alpha-pyrones. These molecules are potentially psychoactive as well and might contribute to the effects. Plus, baeocystin is unlikely active on its own based on studies in mice and human bioassays of 4-HO-NMT (the likely metabolite of baeocystin). It could potentiate/change the activity of psilocin, but a mushroom with only baeocystin would probably have no discernible psychoactive effects.
|
DdaShroom
Wanna Be TI & Friend


Registered: 05/16/19
Posts: 584
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
|
Re: Original images of discussed specimen [Re: Mycoactive] 1
#26676702 - 05/17/20 11:21 AM (3 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mycoactive said: A few Gym species contain alpha-pyrones. These molecules are potentially psychoactive as well and might contribute to the effects. Plus, baeocystin is unlikely active on its own based on studies in mice and human bioassays of 4-HO-NMT (the likely metabolite of baeocystin). It could potentiate/change the activity of psilocin, but a mushroom with only baeocystin would probably have no discernible psychoactive effects.
So it is a mixture of multiple different substances that is creating psychoactive effects? Interesting
|
Mycoactive
Scientist


Registered: 11/20/19
Posts: 185
Last seen: 26 days, 23 hours
|
Re: Original images of discussed specimen [Re: DdaShroom]
#26676983 - 05/17/20 02:07 PM (3 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Hasn't been proven, but that would definitely be my guess because many Gym species contain psilocybin, but they also contain other potentially active molecules and, anecdotally at least, the experience is distinguishable from experiences with Psilocybe.
|
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, 32 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, 32 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, 32 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.
|
|