| Literature DB >> 32128284 |
Reena Roy D1, Shivananda Kandagalla2,3, Krishnappa M1.
Abstract
Deciphering the ethnopharmacological importance is one of the prime steps towards understanding the indigenous traditional medicines practised over the centuries. With the advent of modern techniques, it is possible to unravel and explore the hidden ethnopharmacological benefits, comprising complex bioactive compounds of substantial health benefits and together it helps to treat the complex diseases without any side effects as seen in the case of modern synthetic drugs. In this concern, the present study aims to identify the ethnomycologically significant mycocompounds derived from the fruiting body of wild edible macrofungi, Lentinus squarrosulus that contain a vast array of compounds with notable edibility and a wide spectrum of medicinal applications. Proper authentication of mushroom taxonomy was exclusively done using macro and microscopic observations combining ITS DNA-based methods. Further, the isolate was subjected to fractionation in different solvent systems for mycochemical examination followed by GC-MS analysis. A total of 38 mycocompounds were identified through GC-MS and further subjected to in silico studies for drug-likeness, bioactivity and ADMET predictions to explore the druggability of mycocompounds. In silico analysis revealed 10 mycocompounds having good drug-likeness and ADMET properties. Altogether, the present study explored the ethnomycological potential of L. squarrosulus and identified potential mycocompounds.Entities:
Keywords: ADMET; GC–MS; Lentinus squarrosulus; Wild mushrooms; in silico; mycocompounds
Year: 2019 PMID: 32128284 PMCID: PMC7033700 DOI: 10.1080/21501203.2019.1707724
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mycology ISSN: 2150-1203
Figure 1.Geographical location map of L. squarrosulus collected at Bavikeretaluk, Chikkamagaluru district, Karnataka state, India.
Figure 2.Percentage of nucleotide bases (ITS 1) of L.squarrosulus.
Figure 3.Percentage of nucleotide bases (ITS 4) of L.squarrosulus.
Physico-chemical analysis of powdered basidiocarp of L. squarrosulus.
| Sl.No | Parameters | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Foreign matter (%w/w) | 1.0 | |
| 2. | Moisture content (%w/w) | 0.01 | |
| 3. | pH | 6.7 | |
| 4. | Extractive values (%w/w) | Water soluble extractive | 31.2 |
| Alcohol soluble extractive | 10.7 | ||
| 5. | Ash values (%w/w) | Total ash | 25.12 |
| Water soluble ash | 12.2 | ||
| Acid insoluble ash | 67.2 | ||
Essential elements in fruiting bodies of L. squarrosulus.
| Minerals | |
|---|---|
| Phosphorus | 0.206 |
| Potassium | 0.726 |
| Calcium | 0.06 |
| Magnesium | 0.064 |
| Iron | 35.47 |
| Manganese | 1.90 |
| Zinc | 2.25 |
| Copper | 1.5 |
Figure 4.GC–MS chromatogram of ethanolic fraction of L. squarrosulus.
Compounds identified from the ethanolic fraction of L. squarrosulus through GC–MS.
| Retention time (min) | Compound name | Mol. formula | Mol. weight | Peak area % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.959 | Hydroperoxide, 1-ethylbutyl | C6H14O2 | 118 | 1.39 |
| 5.110 | Pentane, 3-ethyl-2, 4-dimethyl- | C9H20 | 128 | 1.47 |
| 5.326 | 3-Hexen-2-one | C6H10O | 98 | 0.26 |
| 6.414 | 2(3H)-Furanone,dihydro-3-hydroxy-4,4-dimethyl-, (R)- | C6H10O3 | 130 | 0.41 |
| 6.449 | 2H-Pyran-2-one, 5,6-dihydro- | C5H6O2 | 98 | 0.30 |
| 8.367 | 2(3H)-Furanone, dihydro-4-hydroxy- | C4H6O3 | 102 | 1.90 |
| 11.425 | Methyl 2-oxo-1-pyrrolidine acetate | C7H11NO3 | 157 | 10.40 |
| 11.608 | 2H-2,4a-Ethanonaphthalene, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7-hexahydro-2, 5, 5-trimethyl- | C15H24 | 204 | 0.65 |
| 11.642 | 1-Dodecanol | C12H26O | 186 | 0.49 |
| 11.743 | Tetradecane | C14H30 | 198 | 1.06 |
| 13.225 | (E,E,E)-3,7,11,15-Tetramethylhexadeca-1,3,6,10,14-pentaene | C20H32 | 272 | 0.21 |
| 13.500 | 2-Butenedioic acid (Z)-, dibutyl ester | C12H20O4 | 228 | 0.62 |
| 13.631 | alpha-Caryophyllene | C15H24 | 204 | 2.02 |
| 13.979 | Propylphosphonic acid, fluoroanhydride, 4-methylcyclohexyl ester | C10H20FO2P | 222 | 0.29 |
| 14.142 | 1-Pentadecene | C15H30 | 210 | 1.34 |
| 14.227 | n-Tetradecane | C14H30 | 198 | 3.42 |
| 14.931 | n-Nonylcyclohexane | C15H30 | 210 | 0.26 |
| 15.089 | 8-Pentadecanone | C15H30O | 226 | 0.24 |
| 16.383 | 1-Heptadecene | C17H34 | 238 | 1.37 |
| 16.454 | Octadecane | C18H38 | 254 | 1.28 |
| 16.733 | Pentadecanoic acid-methyl ester | C16H32O2 | 256 | 1.03 |
| 17.183 | Cyclohexane, undecyl- | C17H34 | 238 | 0.28 |
| 17.248 | 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dinonyl ester | C26H42O4 | 418 | 0.90 |
| 17.760 | Hexadecanoic acid, methyl ester (Methyl palmitate) | C17H34O2 | 270 | 10.74 |
| 17.999 | Benzenepropanoic acid, 3,5-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-hydroxy-, methyl ester | C18H28O3 | 292 | 0.52 |
| 18.190 | Dibutyl phthalate | C16H22O4 | 278 | 2.36 |
| 18.415 | 1-Heptadecene | C17H34 | 238 | 0.80 |
| 18.475 | n-Tricosane | C23H48 | 324 | 0.42 |
| 18.523 | 7-Hexadecenoic acid, methyl ester, (Z)- | C17H32O2 | 268 | 0.29 |
| 18.740 | Hexadecanoic acid, 15-methyl-, methyl ester | C18H36O2 | 284 | 0.27 |
| 19.407 | Methyl linoleate | C19H34O2 | 294 | 24.21 |
| 19.454 | 9-Octadecenoic acid, methyl ester | C19H36O2 | 296 | 4.18 |
| 19.503 | 9-Octadecenoic acid (Z)-, methyl ester | C19H36O2 | 296 | 0.92 |
| 19.676 | Octadecanoic acid, methyl ester | C19H38O2 | 298 | 1.03 |
| 23.084 | Hexadecanal | C16H32O | 240 | 0.42 |
| 23.262 | 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester | C24H38O4 | 390 | 0.63 |
| 28.141 | Ergosterol | C28H44O | 396 | 16.98 |
| 28.258 | Ergosta-7,22-dien-3-ol, (3.beta.,5.alpha.,22E)- | C28H46O | 398 | 4.62 |
Figure 5.Percentage composition of the main groups of GC–MS analysed mycocompounds from ethanolic fraction of L. squarrosulus.
Mycocompounds with good drug likeness and ADMET properties in L.squarrosulus.
| Toxicity | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ADMET | Rodent carcinogenicity | |||||||||
| Name | Compound(ChemSpider ID) | HIA (%) | PPB (%) | BBB (%) | Caco2(nm/sec) | Skin permeability | MDCK (nm/s) | Ames test | Carcino_Mouse | Carcino_Rat |
| 124448 | 93.92 | 96.12 | 2.06 | 13.32 | −2.15 | 84.61 | Mutagen | Positive | Negative | |
| 4519228 | 100.0 | 86.45 | 0.79 | 42.900 | −2.14 | 60.37 | Mutagen | Negative | Negative | |
| 964 | 86.58 | 94.46 | 0.40 | 20.49 | −3.32 | 4.51 | Mutagen | Negative | Negative | |
| 454155 | 100 | 80.69 | 0.99 | 22.74 | −2.94 | 51.23 | Mutagen | Positive | Negative | |
| 86345 | 83.49 | 78.88 | 0.35 | 15.39 | −4.48 | 2.56 | Mutagen | Negative | Negative | |
| 97873 | 91.39 | 28.37 | 0.43 | 21.17 | −3.79 | 4.01 | Mutagen | Positive | Positive | |
| 521824 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 11.59 | 23.63 | −1.31 | 43.96 | Non-mutagen | Positive | Positive | |
| 4436356 | 95.53 | 100.0 | 0.43 | 26.64 | −1.31 | 25.54 | Mutagen | Positive | Positive | |
| 505335 | 98.14 | 75.35 | 0.81 | 23.69 | −1.29 | 43.59 | Mutagen | Negative | Positive | |
| 13837319 | 98.14 | 99.97 | 0.55 | 34.67 | −1.69 | 3.30 | Mutagen | Positive | Positive | |
Antibacterial activity of ethanolic fraction of L. squarrosulus.
| Si.No. | Zone of Inhibition in mm (Mean±SD) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacterial strains | EA 25% | EA 50% | EA 100% | Standard Ciprofloxacin (1 mg/ml) | Control DMSO | |
| 1 | 12.33 ± 0.17 | 15.1 ± 0.11 | 21.33 ± 0 | 18.07 ± 0 | 0 ± 0 | |
| 2 | 14.27 ± 0 | 16.33 ± 0.11 | 19.33 ± 0.28 | 17.17 ± 0.28 | 0 ± 0 | |
| 3 | 13.13 ± 0 | 15.17 ± 0 | 17.33 ± 0 | 18.33 ± 0.34 | 0 ± 0 | |
| One way ANOVA | P value | 0.0001 | 0.0001 | 0.0001 | 0.0001 | 0.0001 |
| F value | 154.5 | 154.5 | 154.5 | 154.5 | 154.5 | |
Initial dilution of extract: 2000 mg/ml of DMSO (100%).
EA: Ethanolic extract; All the values were replicated three times; Statistical significance (P < 0.05).
Figure 6.Cytotoxic effect of ethanolic fraction of L. squarrosulus against MIA PaCa 2 cancer cell lines at different concentrations (µg/ml) after 24 h of exposure.