Stipe-n Cap said:

They're using terminology interchangeably.

This is much like the argument for meristogenous versus symphogenous fruiting
. Like I said, it's contentious, but only seems to be contentious with the less experienced members.

I'm definitely not going to spend another afternoon running in this same old word circle

---

Chamo said:

Stipe-n Cap said:

They're using terminology interchangeably.

This is much like the argument for meristogenous versus symphogenous fruiting
. Like I said, it's contentious, but only seems to be contentious with the less experienced members.

I'm definitely not going to spend another afternoon running in this same old word circle

---

I’m not going down that path either. But it’s a pubmed journal. New member or not, it matters to me where sources come from.

---

Quote:

“Mushroom researchers and cultivators commonly isolate mushroom strains using three methods: tissue isolation, spore isolation, and substrate mycelium isolation. Tissue isolation involves isolating a small portion of the inner tissue of fruit bodies for re-growth to obtain strains of interest, and has been employed for the isolation of the basidiomycetes, G. lucidum, Tricholoma matsutake, and Pleurotus spp. ...... As for substrate mycelium isolation, strains can be obtained from a substrate in which mushrooms have been grown previously. Of the three methods, tissue isolation is practiced most frequently because of the low contamination rate, high reliability, and ease of manipulation

---

Stipe-n Cap said:

Ok, I just can't help myself. Let me break this down

---

Chamo said:

After a lot of reading I concede that it would be very hard, if not impossible without new instruments to practically achieve a genetic isolate with a scalpel. But it can be done in labs. I was incorrect on my assumption of how easy it is. But I would still prefer a culture as isolated as much as possible. Don’t you agree that it would give more consistency even if it were not a “true” isolate?

---

Stipe-n Cap said:

Ok, I just can't help myself. Let me break this down

Quote:

“Mushroom researchers and cultivators commonly isolate mushroom strains using three methods: tissue isolation, spore isolation, and substrate mycelium isolation. Tissue isolation involves isolating a small portion of the inner tissue of fruit bodies for re-growth to obtain strains of interest, and has been employed for the isolation of the basidiomycetes, G. lucidum, Tricholoma matsutake, and Pleurotus spp. ...... As for substrate mycelium isolation, strains can be obtained from a substrate in which mushrooms have been grown previously. Of the three methods, tissue isolation is practiced most frequently because of the low contamination rate, high reliability, and ease of manipulation

---

If you read carefully, the author defines each process. Let's start with tissue isolation.

We all understand that basidiocarp contain many individual strains, they're certainly not single strain isolates. Basidiocarp form symphogenously from the formation of hyphal knots. By "isolating"/cloning tissue from fruitbodies you're taking advantage of the genetic bottlenecking which is performed by the basidiocarp only. The tissue will be less genetically  diverse than the surrounding secondary mycelium, but not a true individual due to the symphogenous nature of the basidiocarp. The fruit bodies interior will be sterile baring cross contamination/cultivator error. This genetic bottlenecking is capable of reducing genetic diversity in an otherwise unachievable way.

This is a very broad use of the term "isolate”

---

Chamo said:

That has been my experience. I admit they probably are not a single set of genetics. But I see a difference the more they isolate away. Basically I am saying I was wrong when I said “I have isolates in my fridge right now”. They probably are not genetic isolates but they still serve the same purpose for my projects.

---