The effect of light conditions on the content of selected active ingredients in anatomical parts of the oyster mushroom (Pleurotus ostreatus L.).

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of cultivation conditions in the context of light on the retention of selected vitamins, minerals and polyphenols in the stem and cap of the oyster mushroom (Pleurotus ostreatus L.). Additionally, the effect of the retention of bioactive components on the antioxidant activity of mushroom extracts was evaluated, taking into account the morphological part. Oyster mushrooms grown in the light of 200 lux had higher riboflavin content compared to mushrooms exposed to the light of lower intensity. The thiamine content of the mushrooms dropped with decreasing light intensity during cultivation. The content of biologically active compounds was found to be equal in the stem and the cap. In the case of riboflavin, it was shown that its contents in cap fractions, irrespective of the cultivation method, was statistically significantly higher than in stems. The mineral composition of caps and stems differed from each other. No differences in Zn and Cu content between the morphological parts of the mushroom studied were found. However, it was shown that the stems, regardless of the type of light, contained less iron, magnesium and sodium. Thus, it was observed that limited light exposure caused an increase in the content of total polyphenolic compounds, which did not correlate with antioxidant activity. There was no effect of the light on the antioxidant activity of mushrooms. It was also shown that stem extracts had higher antioxidant activity compared to the extracts obtained from the caps. This findings point to the possibility and potentail of use both fraction of mushrooms in the new food products development.

Introduction

Along with fruit and vegetables, edible mushrooms are now at the centre of interest of many research centres around the world. The interest is mostly focused on their flavour and aroma, but in fact, edible mushrooms have antifungal, anti-inflammatory, antiviral, antibacterial, hepatoprotective, antidiabetic, hypolipidemic, hypotensive and cytotoxic properties, as well as a unique composition including such compounds as polyphenols, tocopherols, B vitamins, minerals and proteins [1-3]. Mushrooms are a rich source of highly and easily absorbable minerals. They have been proven to contain significant amounts of potassium, calcium and sodium. Trace amounts of such elements as iodine, fluorine, copper, zinc, mercury, and manganese are found in the mushroom fruiting bodies. Among edible mushrooms, oyster mushrooms contain significant amounts of B and D vitamins [4, 5]. Thiamine, riboflavin, niacin, pyridoxine, pantothenic acid, folic acid and provitamin D2 were found in their fruiting bodies. Fungal polysaccharides include chitin, α- and β-glucans, mannans, xylans, and galactans [6]. Polyphenols are mainly responsible for the antioxidant properties of oyster mushrooms.

Botanically, oyster mushrooms are classified under Basidiomycetes. The natural habitat of Pleurotus spp. is tropical and subtropical forests. In central European conditions, this species is found on dead trunks, logs and stumps of deciduous trees. It can also be grown on different substrates made from lignocellulosic waste [7]. The fruiting bodies of oyster mushrooms are often found in groups consisting of several larger and smaller specimens that grow out of a common base or are arranged in a tiled pattern one above the other. The fruiting bodies are a source of easily digestible protein, folic acid, amino acids, B vitamins and mineral salts. They have been found to contain lovastatin that lowers blood cholesterol levels. It also contains pleuran, the substance with immunostimulatory and anticancer effects [8].

In the cultivation of oyster mushrooms, the yield depends crucially on the climatic conditions. Oyster mushroom species and varieties require light of specific intensity to produce properly formed fruiting bodies. Light is not essential in the mycelial growth period. However, in the period of initiation and growth of fruiting bodies, it is a decisive factor for obtaining a high yield of good quality. The growth of fruiting bodies depends not only on the light intensity but also on the length of the light period in diurnal rhythm. The amount of light needed to develop fruiting bodies can be adjusted by decreasing the lighting duration while increasing light intensity at the same time. It is also possible to increase the lighting duration while decreasing light intensity [9]. Most importantly, however, light intensity was found to affect the morphological characteristics of the oyster mushroom, including cap size and stem length. An increase in the light intensity increases the cap size. As the stems are a waste product, the overarching goal of the current sustainable production is to achieve as high a proportion of the cap as possible compared to the stem. However, from the perspective of closed-loop functional food technology, it is advantageous to produce food also from residues, i.e. from the stem, so that every part of the cultivated raw material is utilised. Oyster mushrooms are often used for the production of functional food. It increases the nutritional value and modifies the taste of food [10]. On the other hand, studies indicate that the growing conditions discussed earlier have a decisive impact not only on the visual qualities of the mushrooms but also determine the content of those ingredients. The same is true for the anatomical part of the mushroom [11, 12]. The concentration of bioactive compounds can vary in the cap and stem and can be variable depending on the growing conditions.

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of cultivation conditions in the context of light on the retention of selected vitamins, minerals and polyphenols in the stem and cap of the oyster mushroom (Pleurotus ostreatus L.). Additionally, the effect of the retention of bioactive components on the antioxidant activity of mushroom extracts was evaluated, taking into account the morphological part.

Material

The substrate for the experiment was prepared by a professional company producing oyster mushroom substrate in Łobez near the city of Jarocin (Poland).

The substrate was prepared from wheat straw, cut into 4–5 cm long chaff and wheat bran. 5 kg of bran was added to 100 kg of dry straw. The mixture was moisturised with tap water to a 70% moisture level and pasteurised at 58–60°C for 48 hours. Once the substrate was cooled to 25°C, it was inoculated with the mycelium of the Spoppo strain of Pleurotus ostreatus (Sylvan Company).

The substrate was mixed with mycelium, which accounted for 3% in proportion to the wet weight of the substrate, and pressed into blocks using a specialised machine that placed the blocks in perforated film bags. Each substrate block weighed 15 kg. The incubation process was conducted at a temperature of 25°C and relative air humidity of 85–90%. Once the substrate was completely covered with the mycelium, it was transferred to the cultivation chambers. Different conditions for the setting and growth of fruiting bodies were applied. The conditions variants were as follows: temperature 15±1°C and light intensity of 200 lux for 8 hours a day until the appearance of 0.5–1 cm fruiting buds; afterwards, during the growth of fruiting bodies, three lighting variants of 200, 50 and 10 lux for 8 hours a day. The tested samples were coded according to the intensity of the light by assigning the corresponding codes: C200 is the fraction of the cap maturing at 200 lux, S200 marks of the stem maturing at 200 lux. C50 and S50 are the caps and stems of fruiting bodies maturing at 50 lux. The C10 and S10 cap and stem fractions matured under 10 lux lighting conditions (Fig 1). In the experiment, fluorescent lamps with colour temperature of 6500K (LF80, Philips, Netherlands) as source of the light.

Fig 1

Photo of the fruiting bodies of the oyster mushroom cultivated in the test conditions by anatomical part.

Legend: C200 is the fraction of the cap maturing at 200 lux, S200 marks of the stem maturing at 200 lux. C50 and S50 are the caps and stems of fruiting bodies maturing at 50 lux. The C10 and S10 cap and stem fractions matured under 10 lux lighting conditions.

Methods

Colour of the mushroom and extract

The colour of caps, stems and mushroom extracts was measured. Colour measurement was performed in L* a* b* CEN unit system using a CM-5 spectrometer (Konica Minolta, Japan) in accordance with the methodology described by the device producer. The light source used was D 65 and the colour temperature was 6504 K. The observation angle of the standard colourimetric observer was 10°. Measurements for each sample were repeated fivefold. The instrument was calibrated using a black pattern.

Analysis of thiamin and riboflavin content

The B1 and B2 vitamin content (thiamin, riboflavin) was analysed using the Acquity H UPLC system equipped with a Waters Acquity PDA detector (Waters, USA) after the prior enzymatic and acid extraction (Zdzieblo 2015). The enzymatic hydrolysis was carried out for 2 hours at 50°C in the presence of tacadiastase, and acid hydrolysis was performed using 0.6 M hydrochloric acid in contact at 90°C for one hour. An Acquity UPLC® BEH C18 column (50 mm × 2.1 mm, particle size 1.7 μm) (Waters, Ireland) was used for the determinations. The phase was formed by a precipitate of methanol and 0.05 M NaH2PO4 containing 0.005 M hexanesulfonic acid, pH 3.0. Gradient elution was performed. Thiamin was converted into thiochrome derivative with 1% potassium hexacyanoferrate (II) and immediately quantified with the Acquity column used. UPLC® BEH C18 column (150 mm × 2.1 mm, particle size 1.7 μm). The phase was formed by a precipitate of methanol and 0.05 M NaH2PO4 containing 0.005 M hexanesulfonic acid, pH 3.0. Gradient elution was performed. The flow rate was 0.4 ml/min. The concentrations of the analysed substances were determined using an internal standard at a wavelength of λ 267 nm for vitamins B1 and B2. Compounds were identified by comparing the retention time of the analysed peak with the retention time of the standard and by adding a specific amount of the standard to the analyzed samples and reanalysing them. The detection level was 1 μg/g.

Mineralisation and mineral content assay

Two aliquots of approximately 0.25 g were made from ground freeze-dried fruit, which were quantitatively transferred to Teflon vessels. 0.5 ml purified water, 5 ml 65% HNO3, 0.5 ml 37% HCl and 0.5 ml 5% H2O2 were added to each vessel. The prepared samples were subjected to microwave mineralisation in a closed system using a mineralisation programme divided into 5 successive stages with different parameters (temperature: 160°C, 190°C, 210°C, 50°C; pressure: 40bar; time: 5, 10, 15, 10, 1 min; power: 90, 99, 99, 0, 0%). After cooling, the mineralisates were quantitatively transferred to centrifuge tubes and diluted with purified water to 50 ml.

Control and measuring apparatus was used to determine the Fe, Cu, P, Zn, Mg and Na content; it includes the TOPwave microwave mineralisation system (Analytik Jena, Germany), an emission spectrometer with an inductively coupled plasma ICP OES model: PlasmaQuant PQ9000 (Analytik Jena, Germany), as well as an autosampler.

The system operation efficiency analysis was carried out by stabilising plasma in a flame and recalibrating the model solutions. Plasma power in ICP-OES analysis was 1200W, with a plasma gas flow rate of 12l/min, an auxiliary gas flow rate of 0.5l/min and atomising gas flow rate of 0.6l/min. The axial direction of measurement was set in the case of the Fe, Zn, Cu and P analysis while radial analysis was used for Mg and Na. The results were developed using the Spect PQ 1.2.3.0 software (Analitik Jena, Germany). The quantitative results of the analysis were automatically corrected for the average values for two blank samples, mineralised similarly to the real ones. All results are given in mg/100g of freeze-dried sample.

Antioxidant activity

The extract’s antiradical scavenging potential against DPPH radicals was also analysed. To that end, a methanolic solution of DPPH was used to evaluate the free-radical scavenging potential of the crude extract according to the method described before [13]. The degree of the solution’s discolouration indicated the scavenging efficacy of the added substance. For this analysis, 1 ml of the extract solution was supplemented with 2 ml of pure methanol (Honeywell, United Kingdom), followed by 0.25 ml of 1 mM DPPH• ethanolic solution. The mixture was vortexed for ~60 s and left for 20 min at room temperature. Absorbance was recorded at λ = 517 nm (Meterek SP 830, Taiwan). Methanol was used to prepare a reference sample and the control. To plot a calibration curve, the absorbance values were measured simultaneously for samples containing respective concentrations of Trolox (Sigma-Aldrich, Germany) as a standard (0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 mg/ml; r2 = 0.9639). The results are expressed as % of inhibition.

The total polyphenol content was determined using Folin-Ciocalteu’s reagent. Sample absorbance was measured at a wavelength of 765 nm with a UV-VIS spectrophotometer (Jena). Gallic acid was the standard and the results were expressed in mg/g dry weight of the extract according to Cheung et al. (2003) [14].

The metal chelating activity was measured as described by Kobus-Cisowska (2019), i.e. by adding 0.1 mM FeSO4 (0.2 mL) followed by 0.25 mM ferrozine (0.4 mL) into 0.2 ml of the extract [15]. Mixture absorbance after incubating at room temperature for 10 min was recorded at 562 nm. The chelating activity was calculated and described as %.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis of all results was performed using Microsoft Excel 2013 software (USA) and Statistica 13 software (StatSoft, Poland). The p values for Levene’s test of independent variables were calculated.

Results

The obtained extracts were examined for physicochemical properties, the results are shown in Table 1. The colours of the tested mushrooms and the extracts obtained from them were evaluated, which was shown to be statistically significantly different. In the case of the mushroom colour, the parameter L*, responsible for determining the extract’s lightness, reached the highest value in the C50 fraction at 73.99 and the lowest in S50 (59.04). The highest value of the parameter a*, which is responsible for the colour change in the green to red range, occurred in the case of the S200 fraction and was 6.93, while the lowest value of C50 was 4.81. On the other hand, the parameter b*, responsible for the colour change from blue to yellow, took lower values for the fruiting bodies marked C200 (16.93) and higher values for that marked S200 (27.77). For the extracts tested, the results of the different fractions of a given parameter were at similar levels. The highest parameter L* value was achieved by sample C200 and amounted to 44.81 while the lowest value was achieved by sample C10 at 41.72. As far as the parameter a* of the extract is concerned, the highest and the lowest value among the samples tested were achieved by C50(14.87) and S50(12.29), respectively. The value of parameter b* is the highest for the C200(16.81) fraction and the lowest for the S200(13.55) fraction.

Table 1

Characteristics of the studied anatomical parts of the oyster mushroom (Pleurotus ostreatus L.) and their extracts expressed in units of L*a*b*.

Sample name	Mushroom colour			Extract colour			RAL palette colour (extract)	RAL palette colour (mushroom)
	L*	a*	b*	L*	a*	b*
C200	67.68 b ± 1.19	6.36 b ± 0.66	16.93 a ± 0.55	44.81± 0.18	14.7 b ± 0.55	16.81± 0.41
S200	64.00 b ± 2.15	6.93 b ± 0.87	27.77 b ± 1.19	42.28± 0.49	13.9 a ± 0.12	13.55± 0.09
C50	73.99 c ± 2.22	4.81 a ± 0.81	26.67 b ± 0.76	42.54± 0.36	14.87 b ± 0.31	17.69± 0.05
S50	59.04 a ± 1.89	6.42 b ± 1.54	18.49 a ± 0.65	44.12± 0.62	12.29 a ± 0.31	13.82± 0.10
C10	68.46 b ± 1.44	7.19 c ± 0.87	23.13 b ± 0.13	41.72± 0.51	14.03 b ± 0.31	16.48± 0.11
S10	70.78 c ± 0.78	5.58 b ± 1.23	17.18 a ± 0.65	43.46± 0.41	13.33 a ± 0.11	14.5± 0.03

The results are mean values of three determinations ± standard deviation. Values sharing the same letter in a column are not significantly different (P ≤ 0.05).

The thiamine and riboflavin content of the mushrooms analysed was tested, with the results shown in Table 2. The study showed that the S200 fraction had the highest content of thiamine (0.134) and the C10 sample had the lowest one (0.076). The riboflavin content in mushroom C200 (0.166) largely stood out as the highest among all fractions; on the other hand, sample S10 (0.160) had the lowest riboflavin content. Increased light exposure resulted in an increase in thiamine content in the fungal fractions tested.

Table 2

Vitamin content in extracts from the anatomical parts of the oyster mushroom (Pleurotus ostreatus L.).

Sample	Thiamine	Riboflavin
S200	0.134 c ±0.003	0.510 b ±0.003
C200	0.125 c ±0.004	0.166 a ±0.095
S50	0.130 c ±0.024	0.363 b ±0.030
C50	0.107 b ±0.002	0.478 b ±0.023
S10	0.126 c ±0.001	0.160 a ±0.002
C10	0.076 a ±0.005	0.750 c ±0.018

The results are mean values of three determinations ± standard deviation. Values sharing the same letter in a column are not significantly different (P ≤ 0.05).

The content of such minerals as iron, copper, zinc, potassium, magnesium and sodium in the analysed mushrooms was also investigated (Table 3). The sample with the 200 lux light supply had the highest iron content. The highest copper content was detected in the fungal fraction exposed to a 50 lux light supply. Samples of the mushroom cap grown at 200 lux and stem 10 showed the highest zinc and potassium content, respectively. Samples of caps exposed to 50 lux lighting were characterised by higher magnesium content; on the other hand, samples of caps exposed to 200 lux lighting had higher sodium content. The stem had higher thiamine content compared to the cap under all growing conditions. In terms of riboflavin content, higher values occurred in the cap. Increasing the light supply caused an increase in thiamine and riboflavin content in the fungal fractions tested, which was 76.32% and 218.75% higher, respectively, compared to the fractions exposed to the lowest amount of light.

Table 3

Mineral content in extracts from the anatomical parts of the oyster mushroom (Pleurotus ostreatus L.).

Mineral content (mg/100g)	variety
	C200	S200	C50	S50	C10	S10
Fe	1.15c ±0.01	1.01b±0.01	1.04b±0.01	0.96a±0.10	1.02b±0.10	0.98a±0.10
Cu	0.17a ±0.01	0.17a±0.03	0.21b±0.01	0.22b±0.01	0.20b±0.01	0.21b±0.01
Zn	0.65c±0.11	0.42b±0,15	0.63c±0.10	0.48b±0.10	0.49b±0.10	0.37a±0.10
P	143.22b±2.02	165.23c±4.43	155.21c±4.22	163.22c±2.18	134.51a±832	165.51c±3.21
Mg	16.26b±0.31	13.02a±0.12	17.12b±0.31	12.61a±0.12	15.54b±0.16	12.32a±1.86
Na	19.91c±0.03	13.01a±0.04	16.42b±0.02	13.98a±0.01	17.43bc±0.04	12.44a±0.06

The mean values in the line marked with different small letters indicate the significance of differences (p ≤ 0.05).

The tested mushroom extracts were evaluated for antioxidant potential using spectroscopic methods (Table 4). It was found that light exposure as well as the anatomical parts of the fungi influenced the antioxidant potential of the extracts tested. The oyster mushroom extracts contained compounds that reacted with the Folin-Ciocalteu reagent. The highest content of such compounds was found in the extract from the mushroom cap exposed to 10 lux (18.65). This extract showed 140.3% higher activity compared to the extract made from mushroom stems obtained under the same light supply conditions. Additionally, the study results were made more thorough by determining the effect of the mushroom extracts using the DPPH radical assay. The extract obtained from the stem grown under 50 lux conditions was shown to scavenge radicals at 57.26; the antiradical activity for the extract from the stem grown under 200 lux illumination, as shown by the DPPH assay, was slightly lower at 55.04. The results of this testing were also confirmed by the chelating assays performed, which showed higher activity for the sample of the cap exposed to a 200 lux light supply, where the mean value for stem extracts was 36.77, which was 82.6% higher than that for cap extracts, with the latter amounting to 20.13.

Table 4

Antioxidant activity of extracts from the anatomical parts of the oyster mushroom (Pleurotus ostreatus L.).

Sample / activity	C200	S200	C50	S50	C10	S10
TPC (mg GAE/g d.m.)	6.18±0.66ab	2.72±0.66b	11.89±0.38ab	4.53±0.70ab	18.65±2.22a	7.76±0.31ab
DPPH (% DPPH scavenging)	21.69±7.24ab	55.04±8.94ab	22.22±3.00ab	57.26±5.95b	3.32±0.20a	47.23±7.33ab
Metal chelating (% Fe++ metal chelating)	29.38±5.39a	27.29±8.25ab	11.95±4.20b	21.68±5.28ab	19.08±5.79ab	24.58±3.49ab

The mean values in the line marked with different small letters indicate the significance of differences (p ≤ 0.05).

Graph of individuals (Fig 2). Individuals with a similar profile are grouped. A high cos2 indicates a good representation of the variable on the principal component. In this case, the variable is positioned close to the circumference of the correlation circle. A low cos2 indicates that the variable is not perfectly represented by the PCs. In this case, the variable is close to the centre of the circle.

Fig 2

Principal component analysis (PCA) biplot of individuals.

Legend: 1—C200; 2—S200; 3—C50; 4—S50; 5—C10; 6—S10; cos2 –square coordinates, quality of representation of the variables; Dim1 –principal component 1; Dim2 –principal component 2.

Graph of variables (Fig 3) shows that positively correlated variables point to the same side of the plot. Negatively correlated variables point to opposite sides of the graph. Positively correlated variables are grouped together. Negatively correlated variables are positioned on opposite sides of the plot origin (opposed quadrants). The distance between variables and the origin measures the quality of the variables on the factor map. Variables that are away from the origin are well represented on the factor map.

Fig 3

Principal component analysis (PCA) plot of individuals.

Legend: Dim1 –principal component 1; Dim2 –principal component 2; contrib—contributions of the individuals to the principal components.

Discussion

Today, edible mushroom production is developing rapidly across the world. Cultivated mushrooms are valued for their relatively high vitamin, micronutrient and bioactive compound content. Many mushroom species can be classified as the so-called "functional foods", which are rapidly growing in importance in both food technology and nutrition [16]. Various oyster mushroom species occur naturally in a plethora of habitats and across numerous climate zones [17]. The following species are of the greatest importance in terms of production: Pleurotus ostreatus (Fr.) Kumm., P. pulmonarius (Fr.) Quel., P. columbinus (Fr.) Quel., P. cornucopiae (Pers.) Rolland, P. eryngi (Fr.) Quel., as well as P. sajor-caju [18]. However, irrespective of the fungus species, it is typically the caps that are of industrial importance. Caps are the trade commodity while stems are deemed production waste. On the other hand, the scientific approach to sustainable production aims to optimise growing conditions in such a way as to attain the highest possible cap-to-stem proportion. Numerous studies have confirmed that limiting light supply increases the cap’s proportion. In this study, it was shown that the light supply provided to the mycelium tested had a major impact on the content of bioactive components in the oyster mushroom. Oyster mushrooms grown in the light of 200 lux had higher riboflavin content compared to mushrooms exposed to the light of lower intensity. In the other study on Cordyceps militaris researchers also showed that light intensity impacts the fruiting body yield bioactive compound production [19]. However, in mentioned studies light intensites of 1250, 1750 and 2500 lux were used, and 1750 lux was the most effective in case of fruiting body yield and biological efficiency [19]. In current study the thiamine content of the mushrooms dropped with decreasing light intensity during cultivation. At the same time, it was found that the biologically active compound content differed depending on the morphological part–it was different in the stem and in the cap. The mineral composition of caps and stems differed from each other. No differences in Zn and Cu content between the morphological parts of the mushroom studied were found, however, it was shown that the stems, regardless of the type of light, contained less iron, magnesium and sodium. Limited light exposure caused an increase in the content of total polyphenolic compounds, which did not correlate with antioxidant activity. There was no effect of the light on the antioxidant activity of mushrooms, but it was shown that stem extracts had higher antioxidant activity compared to cap extracts. Other studies showed also that not only intensity, but also color of the light during development of fruit body can be important. Jang et al. showed that using blue and white LED irradiation makes it possible to obtain higher commercial yields of P. ostreatus compared to fluorescent light, and the ergothioneine was also the highest at the blue and white LED [20].

According to the literature it usually takes 5–8 days for the fruiting bodies of one crop to mature [21]. During the conducted observations of the effect of light on the development of vegetative and reproductive mycelium, it was found that the amount of fruiting bodies produced under exposure to light was over 100% higher compared to fully formed fruiting bodies growing with limited light. Changes in the number of fruiting bodies produced by mycelium with limited light supply showed differences in the dynamics of mycelium development. With ample light supply, cap-forming fruiting bodies are visible, whereas for no-light cultivation, only vegetative hyphae are noticeable [21]. However, the impact of these conditions on bioactive component retention was not determined.

It is generally considered that fungi are a better source of bioactive compounds compared to plants because not only can fungi form fruiting bodies faster, but their fruiting bodies can also be obtained using biotechnological methods, optimising the culture conditions accordingly to obtain the required amounts of active compounds [16, 22]. Different growing conditions affect not only vitamin and mineral content but also polyphenol content. The content of p-hydroxybenzoic acid was determined in B. badius (1.28 mg/kg d.w.), B. edulis (1.94 mg/kg d.w.), C. cibarius (2.30 mg/kg d.w.), with the highest content found in the species P. ostreatus (3.60 mg/kg d.w.). Synapic acid, whose content ranged from 2.11 to 14.29 mg/kg d.w., was also detected in A. mellea, C. cibarius, L. deliciosus and P. ostreatus. On the other hand, cinnamic acid content ranged from 1.09 to 4.06 mg/kg d.w. in C. cibarius, L. deliciosus and P. ostreatus, with the highest content found in B. badius (8.73 mg/kg d.w.) [23].

In this study, it was observed that limited light exposure caused an increase in the content of total polyphenolic compounds; however, this did not correlate with antioxidant activity. There was no effect of the light on the antioxidant activity of mushrooms, but it was shown that stem extracts had higher antioxidant activity compared to cap extracts. The flavonoid antioxidant activity depends on the conjugated double bonds at the C-2 and C-3 positions, as well as the hydroxyl groups and the carboxyl group at the C-4 position. The direct antioxidant action mechanism of these compounds consists in scavenging oxygen free radicals and reactive oxygen species and reduce their production in cells by inhibiting the activity of oxidative enzymes (e.g. lipoxygenase), and by readily donating hydrogen from the carboxyl group to reduce peroxides and hydroperoxides [24].

Summary

The effect of light of the tested mycelium has a significant effect on the content of bioactive components in oyster mushrooms. Oyster mushrooms grown in the light of 200 lux had higher riboflavin content compared to mushrooms exposed to the light of lower intensity. The thiamine content of the mushrooms dropped with decreasing light intensity during cultivation. At the same time, it was found that the biologically active compound content differed depending on the morphological part–it varied in the stem and the cap. In the case of riboflavin, it was shown that its contents in cap fractions, irrespective of the cultivation method taking into account the light intensity, was statistically significantly higher than in stems.

It was demonstrated that the mineral composition of caps and stems differed from each other. No differences in Zn and Cu content between the morphological parts of the mushroom studied were found, however, it was shown that the stems, regardless of the type of light, contained less iron, magnesium and sodium. Thus, it was observed that limited light exposure caused an increase in the content of total polyphenolic compounds, which did not correlate with antioxidant activity. There was no effect of the light on the antioxidant activity of mushrooms, but it was shown that stem extracts had higher antioxidant activity compared to cap extracts. Therefore, it is reasonable to develop a new direction for utilising oyster mushroom stems aimed at functional food production. Further work is needed to confirm the oyster mushroom stems’ technological properties and how such properties may determine the qualities of new functional food products.

26 Oct 2021

PONE-D-21-29872The effect of cultivation conditions on the content of selected active ingredients in anatomical parts of the oyster mushroom (Pleurotus ostreatus L.)PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dziedziński,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The study "The effect of cultivation conditions on the content of selected active ingredients in anatomical parts of the oyster mushroom(Pleurotus ostreatus L.)" is an interesting study where specifically effect of light intensity and duration on contents of fruit bodies of oyster mushroom is studied. Kindly consider the points raised by reviewers and myself and revise the manuscript accordingly.

1. As the study mainly focusses on the effect of light on active ingredients on different parts of the oyster mushroom, thus the title may be revised accordingly.

2. The language in the abstract is too complicated using multiple statements in a single sentence. Thus the syntax of the sentences must be taken care off.

3. Introduction part is too lengthy, may be reduced/limited to relevant statements with regard to the present study.

4. In all over the manuscript, long sentences are used, which may be revised and short and clear sentences may be used.

5. In introduction word variety is used in context of oyster mushroom, I am not sure whether it is variety of the same species or different species.

6. Careful Language correction is required in the manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 10 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Shwet Kamal, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“The publication was co-financed within the framework of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education program as “Regional Initiative Excellence” in years 2019–2022, project number 005/RID/2018/19 and by statutory funds of the Department of Gastronomy Sciences and Functional Foods of Poznan University of Life Sciences, grant number 506.751.03.00.”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. Please amend either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical.

5. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

Additional Editor Comments:

The study "The effect of cultivation conditions on the content of selected active ingredients in anatomical parts of the oyster mushroom(Pleurotus ostreatus L.)" is an interesting study where specifically effect of light intensity and duration on contents of fruit bodies of oyster mushroom is studied. My observations are

1. As the study mainly focusses on the effect of light on active ingredients on different parts of the oyster mushroom, thus the title may be revised accordingly.

2. The language in the abstract is too complicated using multiple statements in a single sentence. Thus the syntax of the sentences must be taken care off.

3. Introduction part is too lengthy, may be reduced/limited to relevant statements with regard to the present study.

4. In all over the manuscript, long sentences are used, which may be revised and short and clear sentences may be used.

5. In introduction word variety is used in context of oyster mushroom, I am not sure whether it is variety of the same species or different species.

6. Careful Language correction is required in the manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: 1. Line no. 63, "Winter varieties require temperatures below 15ºC". Is it is winter varities or winter species?

2. Line no. 63 Check sign of degrees and correct.

3. Line no. 64 Check sign of degrees and correct.

4. Line no. 66 Check sign of degrees and correct.

5. Line 76-78 need refernce to support

6. Authors can specify that why some particular vitamins are taken in study, if any particular reason for that?

7. Improve discussion part

8. Mention the source and colour of light used in experiment

Reviewer #2: This manuscript tries to identify effect of cultivation conditions on the content of selected active ingredients in parts of the oyster mushroom that would help to develop nutritious and healthy mushroom production. This study is preliminary conventional because there have been larger trials that have shown similar findings. There are few typographical errors in the text, that must be corrected before the paper is accepted.

P1, L 21: Typographical errors

P4, L 92: Typographical errors

P9, L 207-208: Typographical errors

P10, L 220: Typographical errors

P11, L 237: Typographical errors

P12, L 239; Table 4: Typographical errors

P14, L 290: Typographical errors

P16, L 324, 325: Typographical errors

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

9 Nov 2021

Dear Editiors and Reviewers,

Thank you for your thorough review. All comments and recommendations indicated by Reviewers have been included in the revised version of the manuscript. Changes to the manuscript were made in the content of the publication. The comments listed in the reviews are referenced in below.

Response to the editor:

1. As the study mainly focusses on the effect of light on active ingredients on different parts of the oyster mushroom, thus the title may be revised accordingly.

The title has been revised, and changed to: “The effect of light conditions on the content of selected active ingredients in anatomical parts of the oyster mushroom (Pleurotus ostreatus L.)”

2. The language in the abstract is too complicated using multiple statements in a single sentence. Thus the syntax of the sentences must be taken care off.

The syntax was improved and sentences shortened.

3. Introduction part is too lengthy, may be reduced/limited to relevant statements with regard to the present study.

The introduction part has been shortened.

4. In all over the manuscript, long sentences are used, which may be revised and short and clear sentences may be used.

5. In introduction word variety is used in context of oyster mushroom, I am not sure whether it is variety of the same species or different species.

It has been corrected or these parts has been deleted.

6. Careful Language correction is required in the manuscript.

Language correction across manuscript has been conducted.

Response to the Reviewer no. 1

Reviewer #1:

1. Line no. 63, "Winter varieties require temperatures below 15ºC". Is it is winter varities or winter species?

2. Line no. 63 Check sign of degrees and correct.

3. Line no. 64 Check sign of degrees and correct.

4. Line no. 66 Check sign of degrees and correct.

This issues have been resolved.

5. Line 76-78 need refernce to support

Reference has been added.

6. Authors can specify that why some particular vitamins are taken in study, if any particular reason for that?

Such vitamins are the most present in oyster mushrooms.

7. Improve discussion part

Discussion has been improved.

8. Mention the source and colour of light used in experiment

This information has been added in the “material” section.

Response to the Reviewer no. 2

Reviewer #2:

This manuscript tries to identify effect of cultivation conditions on the content of selected active ingredients in parts of the oyster mushroom that would help to develop nutritious and healthy mushroom production. This study is preliminary conventional because there have been larger trials that have shown similar findings. There are few typographical errors in the text, that must be corrected before the paper is accepted.

P1, L 21: Typographical errors

P4, L 92: Typographical errors

P9, L 207-208: Typographical errors

P10, L 220: Typographical errors

P11, L 237: Typographical errors

P12, L 239; Table 4: Typographical errors

P14, L 290: Typographical errors

P16, L 324, 325: Typographical errors

Typographical errors have been corrected.

We hope that the current state of the manuscript meets the standards of the Journal and that publication will be possible

Best regards,

Marcin Dziedziński

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

21 Dec 2021

The effect of light conditions on the content of selected active ingredients in anatomical parts of the oyster mushroom (Pleurotus ostreatus L.)

PONE-D-21-29872R1

Dear Dr. Dziedziński,

The Manuscript entitled "The effect of light conditions on the content of selected active ingredients in anatomical parts of the oyster mushroom (Pleurotus ostreatus L.)" is an interesting piece of study. The study is well planned and inferred meticulously. The study describes changes in nutritional contents with regards to Vit B and D and other minerals with varying light intensities. Light play a crucial role in development of mushroom fruit bodies and also affects their quality. Researches have been conducted to study effect of light on fruiting and yield of Pleurotus mushroom but the study of nutritional contents in different parts of the fruitbodies due to changes in light intensity is a novel piece of work.

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Shwet Kamal, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The Manuscript entitled "The effect of light conditions on the content of selected active ingredients in anatomical parts of the oyster mushroom (Pleurotus ostreatus L.)" is an interesting piece of study. The study is well planned and inferred meticulously. The study describes changes in nutritional contents with regards to Vit B and D and other minerals with varying light intensities. Light play a crucial role in development of mushroom fruit bodies and also affects their quality. Researches have been conducted to study effect of light on fruiting and yield of Pleurotus mushroom but the study of nutritional contents in different parts of the fruitbodies due to changes in light intensity is a novel piece of work.

The Study can now be accepted for publication in PLOS ONE journal after taking the reviewer's comment.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The majority of suggested changes have been made to this revised manuscript. There are still a lot of typographical errors. Please fix it.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

23 Dec 2021

PONE-D-21-29872R1

The effect of light conditions on the content of selected active ingredients in anatomical parts of the oyster mushroom (Pleurotus ostreatus L.)

Dear Dr. Dziedziński:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Shwet Kamal

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE