| Literature DB >> 28962329 |
I-Chen Li1, Yen-Lien Chen2, Wan-Ping Chen1, Li-Ya Lee1, Yueh-Ting Tsai3, Chin-Chu Chen1, Chin-Shuh Chen2.
Abstract
Hericium erinaceus (H. erinaceus) has a long history of usage in traditional Chinese medicine for the treatment of gastric disorders. Recently, it has become a well-established candidate in causing positive brain and nerve health-related activities by inducing nerve growth factor (NGF) from its bioactive ingredient, erinacine A. This active compound, which exists only in fermented mycelium but not in its fruiting body, increases NGF levels in astroglial cells in vitro as well as catecholamine and NGF levels in vivo. With increasing recognition of erinacine A in H. erinaceus (EAHE) mycelium improving neurodegenerative diseases, numerous products are being marketed based on these functional claims. To our knowledge, there have been no reports on the mutagenicity of EAHE prior to this paper. Hence, the present study was undertaken to determine the mutagenicity and genotoxicity effects of EAHE mycelium conducted in three standard battery of tests (reverse mutation, chromosomal aberration, and micronuclei tests) according to the latest guidelines in order to meet all international regulatory requirements and provide information on the safety of this new and promising natural remedy. Our results have indicated that EAHE mycelium did not significantly increase the number of revertant colonies in the bacterial reverse mutation test nor induce higher frequency of aberrations in the chromosome aberration test. Moreover, no statistically significant EAHE mycelium-related increase was observed in the incidence of reticulocytes per 1000 red blood cells and micronucleated reticulocytes per 1000 reticulocytes. In conclusion, the three standard battery of tests suggested that EAHE mycelium was devoid of mutagenicity and genotoxicity in the tested doses and experimental conditions.Entities:
Keywords: 2-Aminoanthracene (PubChem CID: 11937); 2-Aminofluorene (PubChem CID: 1539); 4-Nitroquinoline N-oxide (PubChem CID: 5955); 9-Aminoacridine (PubChem CID: 7019); Cyclophosphamide (PubChem CID: 2907); Demecolcine (PubChem CID: 220401); Dimethyl sulfoxide (PubChem CID: 679); Erinacine A; Genotoxicity; Glacial acetic acid (PubChem CID: 176); Hericium erinaceus; Methanol (PubChem CID: 887); Mitomycin C (PubChem CID: 5746); Potassium chloride (PubChem CID: 4873); Safety assessment; Sodium azide (PubChem CID: 33557); Thiazolyl blue tetrazolium bromide (PubChem CID: 64965); benzo[a]pyrene (PubChem CID: 2336)
Year: 2014 PMID: 28962329 PMCID: PMC5598247 DOI: 10.1016/j.toxrep.2014.11.009
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Toxicol Rep ISSN: 2214-7500
Ames Test of EAHE mycelium using Salmonella typhimurium strains TA98, TA100, TA102, TA1535, and TA1537.
| Dose (mg/plate) | Number of revertants/plate (without S9 activation) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TA98 | TA100 | TA102 | TA1535 | TA1537 | |
| Negative control | 29 ± 3 | 148 ± 5 | 233 ± 9 | 20 ± 2 | 13 ± 2 |
| Positive control | 304 ± 8 | 447 ± 19 | 561 ± 15 | 80 ± 10 | 48 ± 5 |
| 5 | 30 ± 5 | 149 ± 4 | 204 ± 13 | 26 ± 2 | 16 ± 1 |
| 2.5 | 32 ± 2 | 140 ± 13 | 216 ± 10 | 19 ± 6 | 15 ± 4 |
| 1.25 | 27 ± 3 | 144 ± 6 | 192 ± 15 | 27 ± 1 | 14 ± 3 |
| 0.625 | 30 ± 6 | 146 ± 6 | 207 ± 10 | 23 ± 4 | 14 ± 1 |
| 0.3125 | 25 ± 9 | 148 ± 12 | 225 ± 12 | 19 ± 4 | 13 ± 2 |
| Number of revertants/plate (with S9 activation) | |||||
| TA98 | TA100 | TA102 | TA1535 | TA1537 | |
| Negative control | 20 ± 1 | 160 ± 16 | 226 ± 13 | 17 ± 1 | 9 ± 2 |
| Positive control | 192 ± 17 | 1103 ± 15 | 1108 ± 15 | 937 ± 8 | 1089 ± 11 |
| 5 | 26 ± 7 | 160 ± 2 | 211 ± 17 | 21 ± 3 | 11 ± 4 |
| 2.5 | 25 ± 2 | 169 ± 8 | 234 ± 19 | 22 ± 2 | 12 ± 2 |
| 1.25 | 26 ± 9 | 160 ± 4 | 228 ± 13 | 17 ± 3 | 11 ± 4 |
| 0.625 | 34 ± 6 | 155 ± 15 | 238 ± 12 | 19 ± 6 | 12 ± 2 |
| 0.3125 | 25 ± 5 | 164 ± 10 | 242 ± 13 | 15 ± 1 | 8 ± 3 |
Data were expressed as mean ± SD (n = 3).
Two-fold or more increase in revertant numbers over the negative control.
Dimethyl sulfoxide.
TA98: 4-nitroquinoline-N-oxide, 0.5 μg/plate; TA100: sodium azide, 0.4 μg/plate; TA102: mitomycin C, 0.5 μg/plate; TA1535: sodium azide, 0.4 μg/plate; TA1537: 9-aminoacridine, 50 μg/plate.
TA98: benzo[a] pyrene, 4 μg/plate; TA100: 2-aminofluorene, 4 μg/plate; TA102: benzo[a] pyrene, 4 μg/plate; TA1535: 2-aminoanthracene, 4 μg/plate; TA1537: 9-aminoacridine, 50 μg/plate.
Chromosome aberration test of EAHE mycelium using CHO-K1 cells.
| Dose | S9-Mixture | G | B | D | R | g | b | e | AF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negative control | − | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0/200 |
| Positive control | − | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 18 | 25/200 |
| 2.5 | − | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4/200 |
| 1.25 | − | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0/200 |
| 0.625 | − | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1/200 |
| Negative control | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2/200 |
| Positive control | + | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 2 | 13/200 |
| 2.5 | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1/200 |
| 1.25 | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1/200 |
| 0.625 | + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1/200 |
| Negative control | − | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0/200 |
| Positive control | − | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 11 | 20/200 |
| 2.5 | − | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0/200 |
| 1.25 | − | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0/200 |
| 0.625 | − | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0/200 |
G: chromosome gap; B: chromosome break; D: dicentric; R: ring; g: chromatid gap; b: chromatid break; e: chromatid exchange.
Statistically significant (p < 0.05, Chi-square test) when compared to the control group.
Ham's/F-12 Culture medium.
6 μM mitomycin C.
80 μM cyclophosphamide.
Aberration frequency: Number of cells with chromosome aberration in 200 metaphase cells (n/200).
Fig. 1Effects of EAHE on the (A) body weight, incidence of (B) reticulocytes (RETs), and (C) micronucleated reticulocytes (MN-RETs) in ICR mice (n = 25). Distilled water and cyclophosphamide (0.05 g/kg) were served as negative (NC) and positive controls (PC), respectively. Data were expressed as mean ± SEM. * Statistically significant (p < 0.05, one-way ANOVA followed by Duncan's test) when compared to the control group.