Nutritional Composition and Bioactive Properties of Wild Edible Mushrooms from Native Nothofagus Patagonian Forests
by
, , , , , , and
Maximiliano Rugolo
1,2,3,
Rafael Mascoloti Spréa
2,3,
Maria Inês Dias
2,3
,
Tânia C. S. P. Pires
2,3,
Mikel Añibarro-Ortega
2,3
,
Carolina Barroetaveña
1,*,
Cristina Caleja
2,3,* and
Lillian Barros
2,3 1
CONICET/Centro de Investigación y Extensión Forestal Andino Patagónico (CIEFAP), Ruta 259 km 3.4, Esquel 9200, Chubut, Argentina
2
Centro de Investigação de Montanha (CIMO), Instituto Politécnico de Bragança, Campus de Santa Apolónia, 5300-253 Bragança, Portugal
3
Labortório Associado para a Sustentabilidade e Tecnologia em Regiões de Montanha (SusTEC), Instituto Politécnico de Bragança, Campus de Santa Apolónia, 5300-253 Bragança, Portugal
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2022, 11(21), 3516; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/foods11213516
Submission received: 23 September 2022
/
Revised: 31 October 2022
/
Accepted: 1 November 2022
/
Published: 4 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Processing and Utilization of High Value-Added Agrofood Rich in Nutrients and Functional Ingredients)
Abstract
:Nothofagus forests of the Andean Patagonian region are home to numerous wild edible mushroom (WEM) species with interesting organoleptic characteristics, although many of them have unknown nutritional and nutraceutical profiles. The proximal composition, fatty and organic acids, soluble sugars, phenolic compounds, ergosterol, as well as antioxidant and antimicrobial activity of 17 WEMs were analyzed. Carbohydrates, the most abundant macronutrients, varied between 49.00 g/100 g dw (C. magellanicus) and 89.70 g/100 g dw (F. antarctica). Significantly higher values were found for total fat in G. gargal (5.90 g/100 g dw) followed by A. vitellinus (4.70 g/100 g dw); for crude protein in L. perlatum (36.60 g/100 g dw) followed by L. nuda (30.30 g/100 g dw); and for energy in G. gargal (398 Kcal/100g) and C. hariotii (392 Kcal/100g). The most effective extracts regarding the TBARS antioxidant capacity were those of Ramaria. This is the first time that a study was carried out on the chemical composition of G. sordulenta, C. xiphidipus, F. pumiliae, and L. perlatum. The promotion of sustainable use of WEMs, including their incorporation in functional diets that choose WEMs as nutritious, safe, and healthy foods, and their use in an identity mycogastronomy linked to tourism development, requires the detailed and precise nutritional and nutraceutical information of each species.
1. Introduction
Edible wild mushrooms are highly available functional foods. Its consumption has been developed and perpetuated in various countries from all over the world [1]. Their commercial and culinary importance is mainly due to their organoleptic properties, such as aroma and flavor, their nutritional qualities, and their medicinal characteristics [2,3,4,5], due to their high protein and fiber content, essential amino acids, bioactive compounds, and low lipids content [3,6].
Different mushrooms have been studied in search of new therapeutic alternatives, finding that they have bioactive properties [7,8,9] and that they constitute rich sources of nutraceuticals molecules [10,11], which are responsible for their antioxidant [12,13,14] and antitumor properties [15]. Antioxidants from edible natural products are currently widely studied for their ability to protect organisms and cells from damage caused by oxidative stress, which is one of the causes of aging and degenerative diseases [16].
Patagonian Andean forests comprise 3,240,996 h dominated by Nothofagus spp. (N. antarctica, N. dombeyi, and N. pumilio are the most representative species) [17]. The region harbors numerous species of wild fungi that are potentially edible, with high nutritional and medicinal value [18,19]. These species have been mentioned by Mapuche communities as having continuity of use over time, excellent organoleptic properties, and commercially viable [20]. The list of prominent and understudied species with consumption records includes Aleurodiscus vitellinus (Lev.) Pat., Cyclocybe aegerita (V. Brig.) Vizzini, Cyttaria hariotii E. Fisch., Cortinarius magellanicus complex Speg., Cortinarius xiphidipus M.M. Moser y E. Horak, Fistulina antarctica Speg., Fistulina endoxantha Speg., Fistulina pumiliae González, Barroetaveña & Pildain, Flammulina velutipes (Curtis) Singer, Grifola gargal Singer, Grifola sordulenta (Mont.) Singer, Hydropus dusenii (Bres.) Singer, Lepista nuda (Bull.) Cooke, Lycoperdon perlatum Pers., Ramaria botrytis (Pers.) Bourdot and R. patagonica (Speg.) Corner, and Pleurotus ostreatus (Jacq.) P. Kumm. [20,21,22,23,24]. Some of these and other cultivated fungi from Argentina and Chile were recently studied to check their nutritional and antioxidant potential [14,25]. However, the list of analyzed WEMs in this regard is not complete. New techniques are available to recheck and compare antioxidant contents, along with other bioactive properties such as antimicrobial activity [26], and compositions from specimens from different areas and habitats of already analyzed species should be carried out to know their variability [27]. Wild fungi have gained special interest in recent decades due to their value as functional foods and their promising future related to the development of local economies [19,28,29]. The combined study of their taxonomy and molecular genetic diversity [19,30,31,32,33,34,35], their phenology, ecology, and productivity [19,22], and the determination of their nutritional and nutraceutical profiles are required to expand the current variety of harvested species (mainly Morchella spp. and Suillus luteus [20]) for their sustainable and safe use, thereby creating novel modalities of products and services that locals could offer [28].
This study aimed to widen the comprehension of the biological properties and nutritional composition of endemic and cosmopolitan species of wild Patagonian edible mushrooms growing in Nothofagus forests. The bioactivity evaluation focused on phenolic compounds contents and antimicrobial and antioxidant properties. The chemical analysis comprised the determination of macronutrients (protein, lipids, carbohydrates, and ashes) and the composition of sugars, fatty acids, and organic acids. Comparison with previous reports for some species are included.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Fungi Identification and Sampling
Specimens of seventeen species (Figure 1) of WEMs (Aleurodiscus vitellinus, Cyclocybe aegerita, Cyttaria harioti, Cortinarius magellanicus, Cortinarius xiphidipus, Fistulina antarctica, F. endoxantha, F. pumiliae, Flammulina velutipes, Grifola gargal, G. sordulenta, Hydropus dusenii, Lepista nuda, Lycoperdon perlatum, Pleurotus ostreatus, Ramaria botrytis, and R. patagonica) were sampled during the mushroom fruiting seasons in Patagonia: fall (April–May) and spring (October–November) of 2019 and 2020, according to species phenology [22]. Locations included Nothofagus spp., Maytenus boaria, and Lomatia hirsuta forests from National Parks of the Chubut (PN Los Alerces and PN Lago Puelo), Río Negro (PN Nahuel Huapi), and Neuquén (PN Lanín) provinces, Argentina. Each sample (complete fruitbodies) was freeze-dried, pulverized, and stored in polyethylene bags at −18 °C in a freezer for subsequent analyses. Representative species of each species were dehydrated and incorporated in the Herbarium of the Patagonian Forest Research Center (CIEFAP; Esquel, Chubut, Argentina).
2.2. Nutritional Characterization
Samples of each species were analyzed for nutritional composition (protein, carbohydrates, fat, ash, and energy) using AOAC procedures [36]. The total carbohydrates were obtained by difference, and the energy values were calculated with the equation Energy (kcal) = 4 × (g protein + g carbohydrates) + 9 × (g fat). The results are expressed in kcal per 100 g of dry weight (dw).
2.3. Chemical Composition
2.3.1. Free Sugars
Free sugars determination followed the methodology by Barros et al. [37]. Analysis was performed by liquid chromatography (HPLC, Knauer, Smartline 1000 systems, Berlin, Germany), coupled with a refraction index detector (Knauer Smartline 2300). The detected compounds were identified by comparison with the retention times of the standards. Trehalose was used as the internal standard. Results are expressed in g/100 g of dry weight (dw).
2.3.2. Fatty Acids
The fatty acids were identified by gas chromatography with flame ionization detection (GC-FID), as previously described by Pereira et al. [38]. The identification of fatty acids was made according to their relative retention times of the FAME peaks of the sample standards (mixture 37, 47885-U purchased from Sigma). To process the results, we used CSW 1.7 software (DataApex 1.7, Prague, Czech Republic); results are expressed as a relative percentage (%).
2.3.3. Ergosterol
The ergosterol was quantified after extraction following Vieira Junior et al. [39]. It was determined by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) coupled to a UV detector (280 nm), as described by Cardoso et al. [40], and was identified and quantified by comparison with the pure chemical standard and expressed in mg/100g dw.
2.3.4. Organic Acids Composition
The organic acids were determined by high-performance liquid chromatography coupled to a photodiode detector (UFLC-PDA) following the methodology described by Barros et al. [37]. The detection of organic acids was achieved using a DAD system, applying a wavelength of 215 nm (and 245 nm for ascorbic acid). The quantification was carried out by comparing the area of their recorded peaks with the calibration curves obtained from the standards of the respective compound. The results are expressed in mg/100 g (fw).
2.3.5. Phenolic Composition
Samples of 0.5 g of freeze-dried specimens were used for the extract preparation. They were initially macerated at room temperature with the addition of a solution (30 mL) of ethanol/water (80:20, v/v), for 1 h (150 rpm). Ethanol was removed under reduced pressure. Afterwards, the aqueous phase of both extracts was frozen and lyophilized.
The identification and quantification of the phenolic compounds followed the previously optimized methodology [41], using a Dionex Ultimate 3000 UPLC system (Thermo Scientific, San Jose, CA, USA). The DAD and mass spectrometer (LTQ XL mass spectrometer, Thermo Finnigan, San Jose, CA, USA) were working in negative mode.
2.4. Bioactivities Evaluation
2.4.1. Evaluation of Antioxidant Activity
An in vitro assay based on the monitoring of malondialdehyde (MDA)-TBA complexes was carried out as previously reported [42] to measure the extract capacity to inhibit the formation of thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS). Porcine brain cells were used as biological substrates. The results are expressed as IC50 values (mg/mL).
For the oxidative hemolysis inhibition assay (OxHLIA), sheep erythrocytes were used, as previously described by Lockowandt et al. [43]. Results are expressed as half-maximal inhibitory concentrations (IC50 values, μg/mL) calculated for a Δt of 60 min. Trolox (6-hydroxy-2,5,7,8-tetramethylchroman-2-carboxylic acid, purchased from Sigma), was used as a positive control.
2.4.2. Evaluation of Antibacterial Activity
The extracts were tested against five Gram-negative bacteria, namely, Enterobacter cloacae (ATCC 49741), Escherichia coli (ATCC 25922), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC 9027), Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Enteritidis (ATCC 13076), and Yersinia enterocolitica (ATCC 8610), and three Gram-positive bacteria, namely, Bacillus cereus (ATCC 11778), Listeria monocytogenes (ATCC 19111), and Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 25923). The minimum inhibitory (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentrations were determined for all bacteria using colorimetric assays, following Pires et al. [44]. The MIC was defined as the lowest concentration inhibiting visible bacterial growth, determined by a change from yellow to pink coloration if the microorganisms are viable. The MBC was defined as the lowest concentration required to kill bacteria.
To evaluate the antifungal activity, the methodology described by Heleno et al. [45], using Aspergillus fumigatus (ATCC 204305) and Aspergillus brasiliensis (ATCC 16404), was used. The organisms were obtained from Frilabo, Porto, Portugal. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum fungicidal concentration (MFC) were determined by a serial dilution technique using 96-well microplates. The lowest concentrations without visible growth (at the binocular microscope) were defined as the MICs. The lowest concentration with no visible growth was defined as the MFC, indicating 99.5% killing of the original inoculum. The commercial fungicide ketoconazole (Frilabo, Porto, Portugal) was used as positive control.
2.5. Statistical Analysis
Three independent samples per mushroom species were analyzed, and the data are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation. All statistical tests were performed at a 5% significance level in RStudio (version 1.1.485—© 2009–2022 RStudio, Inc.) [46]. The homogeneity of variance and normal distribution of the residuals were tested by means of the Shapiro–Wilk and Levene tests, respectively, to fulfill the one-way ANOVA requirements. All dependent variables were compared using Tukey’s tests. When normality or heteroscedasticity could not be verified, the variables were Box–Cox transformed before performing the ANOVA. Kruskal–Wallis tests were carried out when a normal distribution and heteroscedasticity were not achieved after Box–Cox transformation.
3. Results and Discussion
The obtained chemical compositions and energetic values are shown in Table 1. Protein contents varied between 3.20 g/100 g dw in F. antarctica and 36.60 g/100 g dw in L. perlatum. The top-five values concerning of highest protein content was L. perlatum (36.60 g/100 g dw), L. nuda (30.30 g/100 g dw), H. dusenii (22.20 g/100 g dw), R. patagonica (18.10 g/100 g dw), and C. magellanicus (14.40 g/100 g dw). Comparing with previous studies, Ramaria patagonica and R. botrytis showed similar results than those reported by other authors with a value of 19.68 g/100 g dw [25] and 16.60 g/100 g dw [14]. However, in a Portuguese mushroom study [16], R. botrytis showed higher protein values (39.8 g/100 g dw) than our results. Flammulina velutipes (17.89 g/100 g dw) and C. aegerita (19.65 g/100 g dw) showed lower levels than those reported by Jacinto-Azevedo et al. [14]. Other studies on G. gargal showed similar results with values of 5.96 [25] and 5.00 g/100 g dw [38]. Previous studies on Cyttaria have reported higher values than those reported here; for example, C. espinosae had values of 17.46 g/100 g dw [14] and C. darwini values of 17.20 g/100 g dw [38,47]. However, C. hariotii showed similar results (3.35 g/100 g dw) than those reported by Toledo et al. [25]. The protein values for A. vittelinus, C. magellanicus, F. antarctica, and F. endoxantha are in concordance with other reports [25]. On a dry weight basis, mushrooms normally contain 19 to 35% protein. Therefore, regarding the amount of crude protein, mushrooms are positioned below most animal meats but well above most other foods, including milk, rice, and wheat [48].
The fat content ranged from 0.70 g/100 g dw (F. antarctica) to 5.90 g/100 g dw (G. gargal). High values were also observed in A. vitellinus (4.70 g/100 g dw) and C. magellanicus (4.40 g/100 g dw). Furthermore, the crude fat content of C. aegerita (1.05 g/100 g dw) was higher than those obtained by Jacinto-Azevedo et al. [14], while F. velutipes (1.70 g/100 g dw) was similar as that reported by other authors [14,38]. In addition, levels in A. vitellinus (3.49 g/100 g dw), C. magellanicus (2.75 g/100 g dw), C. hariotii (1.31 g/100 g dw), G. gargal (1.79 g/100 g dw), and L. nuda (0.84 g/100 g dw) were higher than those obtained by Toledo et al. [25], but were lower in F. antarctica (0.83 g/100 g dw), F. endoxantha (1.19 g/100 g dw), H. dusenii (4.29 g/100 g dw), and R. patagonica (2.51 g/100 g dw) compared to these authors’ findings. The fat content in C. hariotii was similar (2.10 g/100 g dw) than previous reports [47]. Low fat contents in edible mushrooms are one of the reasons why they are recognized as healthy food sources. Chang and Miles [48] have reported fat contents varying between 1 to 15% per 100 g of dried weight, including all types of lipids.
Ash varied from 4.80 g/100 g in P. ostreatus to 32.00 g/100 g in C. magellanicus. Cyttaria hariotii yielded lower values (7.0 g/100 g dw) than what Schmeda-Hirschmann et al. [47] previously reported, and similar values than those reported by Jacinto-Azevedo et al. [14] for C. espinosae (4.90 g/100 g dw). However, lower values were observed in F. velutipes, C. aegerita, and R. botrytis [14], in G. gargal [47], and in F. antarctica and F. endoxantha [25]. Similar results to Toledo et al. [25] were found for L. nuda (8.58 g/100 g dw) and R. patagonica (8.47 g/100 g dw), but lower for L. nuda (18.5 g/100 g dw) compared to Barros et al. [11]. The ash content in edible mushrooms ranges from 1 to 29 g/100 g dry matter and comprise a source of essential minerals. Concentrations of P, K, Ca, Na, and Mg constitute more than 56% of the total ash content [48].
Carbohydrates represent the most abundant nutrient, varying between 49.00 g/100 g dw (C. magellanicus) and 89.70 g/100 g dw (F. antarctica), closely followed by P. ostreatus and C. hariotii. Previous reports showed similar results for F. endoxantha, G. gargal, and R. botrytis, lower for A. vitellinus, C. magellanicus, C. aegerita, C. hariotii, F. velutipes, H. dusenii, and L. nuda, and higher for P. ostreatus and R. patagonica [14,25].
Energetic values ranged from 293.00 Kcal/100 g dw in C. magellanicus to 398.00 Kcal/100 g dw in G. gargal. Other species with high energetic values were C. hariotii (392.00 kcal/100 g dw), A. vitellinus (387.00 kcal/100 g dw), and P. ostreatus (386.00 kcal/100 g dw).
Concerning sugar composition (Table 2), mannitol and trehalose were the principal sugars, which is in agreement with the data presented in the literature; they are essential in energetic metabolism and necessary in the synthesis of storage or structural polysaccharides [38]. Mannitol content was significantly higher for A. vitellinus (8.83 g/100 g dw), R. botrytis (6.34 g/100 g dw), and R. patagonica (8.64 g/100 g dw), although absent in F. endoxantha, in concordance with Toledo et al. [25]. The support and expansion of the mushroom fruiting bodies is guaranteed by the presence of mannitol [49]. Trehalose predominated in C. xiphidipus (17.60 g/100 g dw), P. ostreatus (15.81 g/100 g dw), C. aegerita (13.54 g/100 g dw), and G. sordulenta (11.25 g/100 g dw), but was absent in R. botrytis and R. patagonica. The ingestion, hydrolysis, absorption, and metabolism of trehalose is highly similar to all the other digestible disaccharides [49]. On the other hand, fructose and one unidentified sugar were predominant in all three Fistulina species (F. endoxantha, F. antarctica, and F. pumiliae) in concordance with previous reports [25]. Fructose was also the predominant sugar in Flammulina velutipes (8.56 g/100 g dw), agreeing with Reis et al. [50], while it was absent in A. vitellinus, C. magellanicus, L. perlatum, and P. ostreatus, and present in lower abundance in the rest of the species. In terms of total sugar content, F. endoxantha revealed the highest value (33.88 g/100 g dw), while G. gargal the lowest (3.63 g/100 g dw). This is the first study that reports the composition in free sugars of endemic species C. xiphidipus, F. pumiliae, and G. sordulenta.
Organic acids comprise a group of mono-, di-, and tricarboxylic acids physiologically occurring as intermediates in a variety of intracellular metabolic pathways, such as catabolism of amino acids, the tricarboxylic acid cycle, and neurotransmitters, as well as in cholesterol biosynthesis [51]. The organic acid composition is presented in Table 2. Most of the analyzed specimens had oxalic, malic, and fumaric acids in their composition. On the other hand, quinic, shikimic, citric, and succinic acids were present just in a few species. Citric acid was detected in high amounts in C. magellanicus (57.40 mg/100 g dw), R. patagonica (57.31 mg/100 g dw), A. vitellinus (31.11 mg/100 g dw), and C. hariotii (23.41 mg/100 g dw). The oxalic acid content was significantly higher for L. nuda (66.72 mg/100 g dw). Shikimic acid was present just in C. aegerita (0.72 mg/100 g dw) and P. ostreatus (1.07 g/100 mg dw). Quinic acid was only present in C. xiphidipus (541.57 mg/100 g dw), F. antarctica (0.54 mg/100 g dw), and L. nuda (487.50 mg/100 g dw). High amounts of succinic acid were detected in A. vitellinus (452.79 mg/100 g dw) and L. nuda (277.39 mg/100 g dw). Aleurodiscus vitellinus and C. magellanicus showed the most optimum amount of malic acid (74.58 mg/100 g dw) and fumaric acid (11.02 mg/100 g dw), respectively. Ascorbic acid was not detected. Analyzing the total organic acids profile, the highest value was revealed by L. nuda (832.92 mg/100 g dw), while the lowest by H. dusenii (5.13 mg/100 g dw).
Table 3 presents the fatty acid composition of each species, along with the values of the total saturated fatty acids (SFAs), polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), and monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs). Linoleic acid (C18:2), oleic acid (C18:1), and palmitic acid (C16:0) were the major fatty acid found in the studied species, in concordance with different studies [10,25]. In total, 27 fatty acids were identified and quantified. Due to the high contribution of linoleic acid, PUFAs were the main group of fatty acids in C. xiphidipus (43%), C. aegerita (48.70%), C. hariotii (48.40%), F. antarctica (48.40%), L. nuda (54.30%), and L. perlatum (68%). MUFAs were the main group of fatty acids in A. vitellinus (54.59%), G. gargal (58.9%), H. dusenii (52.60%), R. botrytis (43.91%), and R. patagonica (39.37%), due to the high contribution of oleic acid, in concordance with Toledo et al. [25]. SFAs predominate in C. magellanicus, F. endoxantha, F. pumiliae, F. velutipes, G. sordulenta, and P. ostreatus due to the palmitic acid content.
Regarding the favorable effect of fatty acids on human health, oleic acid, a monounsaturated fatty acid ω-9 series, also present in vegetable oils, is known for its efficiency in reducing cholesterol levels, preventing cardiovascular diseases [52,53].
Within polyunsaturated fatty acids, ω-3 and ω-6 are the most abundant in mammals. Its precursors, α-linolenic acid (ALA) and linoleic acid (LA), are considered essential fatty acids, as the body requires them for normal operation but which cannot be synthesized endogenously [54]. Within the series of omega-3, the most important in the human diet are eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), both difficult to synthesize endogenously and with important functions in the human body. DHA is a structural fatty acid, since it forms part of cell membranes and is also important for visual (it makes up 20% of all fatty acids present in the retina) and neuronal development during gestation and early childhood [55,56]. In our study, C. hariotii showed high amounts of DHA (7.74%). Interestingly, some ethnomycological reports [57,58] showed that in the Selknam, Ahonikenk, and Kawesqar native Patagonian populations, after giving birth and while the quarantine lasted, the mothers lived exclusively on Cyttaria fungus (C. darwinii and C. hariotii). In the omega-6 series one has to pay special attention to γ-linolenic acid (GLA) and arachidonic acid (AA), important for prostaglandin production and anti-inflammatory activity [55]. From all the above, the importance of supplementing a diet with fatty acids, which are clearly present in edible mushrooms, can be deduced, since their current intake is insufficient.
The ergosterol content (Table 4) ranged from 0.40 mg/100 g in C. hariotii to 123.57 mg/100 g dw in G. gargal. In other studies of edible and medicinal mushrooms, similar differences have been reported, ranging from traces for Armilaria mellea, to values of 25.71 mg/100 g dw for Laetiporus sulphureus or 445.32 mg/100 g dw for Macrolepiota procera. The differences in ergosterol and other nutritional and bioactive compounds depend on the species, stage of development, tissues, nutrient substrate, and microclimate [26,59]. Vieira Junior et al. [39] showed that ergosterol biosynthesis and its bioconversion into ergocalciferol were also affected by the cultivation process in Agaricus subrufescens production, showing differences between field culture and controlled conditions. Ergosterol is metabolized into a prohormone—vitamin D. Its action is related with bone mineral metabolism and with the balance of phosphorus and calcium, related to various mechanisms such as secretion and effect of insulin, regulation of the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system, endothelial function, cell cycle control and apoptosis, immunological self-tolerance, and immune response against infections, among other effects [60]. For these reason, edible mushrooms are promising sources of vitamin D, and thus able to improve food supplements for human consumption.
Regarding phenolic compounds (Table 5), four phenolic acids (gallic, p-hydroxybenzoic, protocatechuic, and p-coumaric) and two related compounds (3-(3,4-dihydroxyphenyl)-lactic acid and gallic acid monohydrate) were identified and quantified. All the studied species presented gallic acid between 0.80 (for C. hariotii, consistent with previous reports [25]) and 7.36 mg/g dw (C. xiphidipus). The p-hydroxybenzoic acid was present in C. magellanicus, C. xiphidipus, C. aegerita, F. endoxantha, F. pumiliae, L. nuda, L. perlatum, and P. ostreatus, with values of 0.55 mg/g dw for F. pumiliae and 40.33 mg/g dw for L. perlatum. Protocatechuic acid was present in C. magellanicus, C. xiphidipus, C. aegerita, F. antarctica, F. endoxantha, F. pumiliae, G. gargal, R. botrytis, and R. patagonica, with the highest values for F. endoxantha (7.65 mg/g dw) and R. patagonica (5.30 mg/g dw). In addition, p-coumaric acid was registered only in C. aegerita, L. nuda, and L. perlatum. In comparison with the other species, L. perlatum presented a significantly higher value of total phenolic acids (51.40 mg/g dw), attributable to the proportion of p-hydroxybenzoic acid. In the study of Toledo et al. [25], L. nuda did not present phenolic compounds; however, in concordance with Barros et al. [61], in this study, L. nuda presented p-coumaric, gallic, and p-hydroxybenzoic acids.
Table 6 shows the in vitro antioxidant activity of the studied species. Ramaria patagonica (156 µg/mL), R. botrytis (167 µg/mL), G. sordulenta (299 µg/mL), and A. vitellinus (551 µg/mL) presented the best results in the TBARS assays; meanwhile, L. perlatum (90 µg/mL), L. nuda (93 µg/mL), A. vitellinus (113 µg/mL), and G. sordulenta (155 µg/mL) presented the best results in OxHLIA, all with IC50 values ≤ 1000 µg/mL. The result of the antioxidant activity in OxHLIA for L. perlatum is in concordance with its highest total levels of phenolic compounds. That the antioxidant activity of mushrooms correlates with the phenolic compounds content has already been reported [62]. Fistulina antarctica comparatively presented the lowest antioxidant activity (IC50 of 2627 µg/mL for TBARS and of 1066 µg/mL for OxHLIA), in concordance with Toledo et al. [25]. Lepista nuda showed lower values (711 µg/mL) for the TBARS assay compared to those reported by other authors, with IC50 values of 5800 µg/mL [11] and 6100 µg/mL [25]. The high antioxidant activity of Ramaria is in agreement with the literature; for example, for R. flava, R. botrytis, and R. subaurantiaca with DPPH assays by Jacinto-Azevedo et al. [14], and for R. patagonica with different assays by Toledo et al. [25]. The antioxidant activity by DPPH or reducing the power test was also evaluated applying different extracting methodologies in Grifola samples; for example, Brujin et al. [63,64], using different solvents or heat treatments in Grifola gargal, and Postemsky et al. [65], using wheat grain biotransformed with mycelium of G. gargal and G. sordulenta. Among the three edible Rusulla species, R. integra ethanolic extract showed the best antihemolytic activity, with an IC50 value of 139 ± 3 μg/mL, also for a 60 min Δt [25]. This is the first study on the anti-hemolytic capacity of wild edible species.
All extracts were tested against ten bacteria and fungi considered food contaminants (Table 7). Each mushroom species showed different intensities of positive antimicrobial activity against the tested microorganisms. The antibacterial effects were more effective against Salmonella enterocolitica, Yersinia enterocolitica (Gram-negative bacteria), and Staphylococcus aureus (Gram-positive bacteria). The antifungal effect was more effective in Aspergillus brasiliensis. Among these active extracts, those produced by A. vitellinus (MIC 1.25 mg/mL) F. velutipes (MIC 2.5 mg/mL), G. gargal (MIC 2.5 mg/mL), P. ostreatus (MIC 2.5 mg/mL), and R. botrytis (MIC 1.25 mg/mL) exhibited a good inhibitory activity against Yersinia enterocolitica; and the extracts from G. sordulenta and R. botrytis (MIC 0.3 mg/mL) against Staphylococcus aureus. The Gram-negative bacteria, Enterobacter cloacae, Escherichia coli, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and the Gram-positive bacteria Bacillus cereus and Listeria monocytogenes were less sensitive to the extracts used. C. hariotii showed no activity against the analyzed bacteria. None of the extracts presented bactericidal and fungicidal activity.
In addition, A. vitellinus, C. magellanicus, C. xiphidipus, F. endoxantha, H. dusenii, and R. patagonica had fungistatic effects (MIC 0.15 mg/mL) against A. brasiliensis and A. fumigatus.
All these results must be considered taking into account the already established fact that the chemical composition of mushrooms could vary with the genetic structure and strains within the same species. Our ranks also considered dehydrated, complete fruiting bodies, in the mature stage, with no stratification by site conditions nor post-harvest treatments. Maturation stage at harvest, a specific part of the mushroom analyzed (stem, cup, lamellae), and environmental variables, such as soil composition, as well as the postharvest preservation method (freeze dry, oven-dry, cooled, fresh) and cooking process may affect their chemical composition [3].
4. Conclusions
This study highlights the value of the native and endemic mushrooms of the Patagonian forest, regarding, for example, their antioxidant qualities, as in the case of Ramaria spp., or their energetic value, as in the case of G. gargal and C. hariotti. Species such as C. aegerita, F. velutipes, L. nuda, and P. ostreatus demonstrated the importance of edible mushroom with a cosmopolitan distribution growing in native forests, resulting in an invaluable source of food with high protein values, low contents of fat, along with other bioactive compounds with remarkable antioxidant and antimicrobial activity. The data provided by this study, along with previous ones, will strengthen and support the inclusion of new species of wild edible fungi in the Argentine food code. In this way, we expect to revalue these resources as non-timber forest products from Patagonia, promoting multiple and sustainable uses of native forests.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, C.B. and L.B.; methodology, M.R., R.M.S., M.I.D., T.C.S.P.P., M.A.-O. and C.C., experimental work, M.R., R.M.S., M.I.D., T.C.S.P.P., M.A.-O. and C.C., modelling and data analysis, M.R., M.I.D., T.C.S.P.P., M.A.-O. and C.C.; writing—original draft preparation, M.R., R.M.S., M.I.D., T.C.S.P.P., M.A.-O. and C.C.; writing—review and editing, L.B. and C.B.; supervision, C.C. and L.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported by National Funds from Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT, Portugal) through project UIDB/00690/2020 and UIDP/00690/2020; and by National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET, Argentina) through project PIP 11220170100982C and and Ministry of Science, Technology and Productive Innovation (PICT-2018-03234).
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.
Acknowledgments
Maximiliano Rugolo and Carolina Barroetaveña thank the National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET) and Andean Patagonian Forest Research and Extension Center (CIEFAP) for funding the postdoctoral travel fellowship; and the National Parks of Argentina for the authorization to collect and transport the fungal material. Authors thank Viviana Salazar Vidal and Gabriela Gonzalez kindly permitted to use their photographs. The authors are grateful to the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT, Portugal) for financial support by national funds FCT/MCTES (PIDDAC) to CIMO (UIDB/00690/2020 and UIDP/00690/2020) and SusTEC (LA/P/0007/2021). M.I. Dias and L. Barros are grateful for national funding from FCT; P.I., through the institutional scientific employment program contract. M. Añibarro-Ortega thanks FCT for his PhD studentship (2020.06297.BD). C. Caleja is thankful for her contract through the project Healthy-PETFOOD (POCI-01-0247-FEDER-047073).
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.
References
- Boa, E. Wild edible fungi: A global overview of their use and importance to people. In Non-Wood Forest Products; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2004; pp. 1–147. [Google Scholar]
- Guedes de Pinho, P.; Ribeiro, B.; Gonçalves, R.F.; Baptista, P.; Valentão, P.; Seabra, R.M.; Andrade, P.B. Correlation between the pattern volatiles and the overall aroma of wild edible mushrooms. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 1704–1712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barroetaveña, C.; Toledo, C.V. The nutritional benefits of mushrooms. In Wild Plants, Mushrooms and Nuts: Functional Food Properties and Applications, Ferreira, I.C.F.R., Morales Gómez, P., Barros, L., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, UK, 2017; pp. 65–82. [Google Scholar]
- Manzi, P.; Gambelli, L.; Marconi, S.; Vivanti, V.; Pizzoferrato, L. Nutrients in edible mushrooms: An inter-species comparative study. Food Chem. 1999, 65, 477–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bobek, P.; Galbavy, S. Hypercholesterolemic and anti-atherogenic effect of oyster mushroom (Pleurotus ostreatus) in rabbit. Nahrung 1999, 45, 339–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalač, P. A review of chemical composition and nutritional value of wild-growing and cultivated mushrooms. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2013, 93, 209–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindequist, U.; Niedermeyer, T.H.; Jülich, W.D. The pharmacological potential of mushrooms. Evid-Based Complement. Altern Med. 2005, 2, 285–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zaidman, B.Z.; Yassin, M.; Mahajna, J.; Wasser, S.P. Medicinal mushroom modulators of molecular targets as cancer therapeutics. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2005, 67, 453–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petrova, R.D.; Reznick, A.Z.; Wasser, S.P.; Denchev, C.M.; Nevo, E.; Mahajna, J. Fungal metabolites modulating NF-kappa B activity: An approach to cancer therapy and chemoprevention (Review). Oncol. Rep. 2008, 19, 299–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ribeiro, B.; Valentão, P.; Baptista, P.; Seabra, R.M.; Andrade, P.B. Phenolic compounds, organic acids profiles and antioxidative properties of beefsteak fungus (Fistulina hepatica). Food Chem. Toxicol. 2007, 45, 1805–1813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Barros, L.; Venturini, B.A.; Baptista, P.; Estevinho, L.M.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R. Chemical composition and biological properties of Portuguese wild mushrooms: A comprehensive study. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 3856–3862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferreira, I.C.F.R.; Barros, L.; Abreu, R. Antioxidants in wild mushrooms. Curr. Med. Chem. 2009, 16, 1543–1560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reis, F.S.; Martins, A.; Barros, L.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R. Antioxidant properties and phenolic profile of the most widely appreciated cultivated mushrooms: A comparative study between in vivo and in vitro samples. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2012, 50, 1201–1207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jacinto-Azevedo, B.; Valderrama, N.; Henríquez, K.; Aranda, M.; Aqueveque, P. Nutritional value and biological properties of Chilean wild and commercial edible mushrooms. Food Chem. 2021, 356, 129651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wasser, S. Medicinal mushrooms as a source of antitumor and immunomodulating polysaccharides. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2002, 60, 258–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barros, L.; Falcao, S.; Baptista, P.; Freire, C.; Vilas-Boas, M.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R. Antioxidant activity of Agaricus sp. mushrooms by chemical, biochemical and electrochemical assays. Food Chem. 2008, 111, 61–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MAyDS. Informe Bosque Andino Patagónico. In Segundo Inventario Nacional de Bosques Nativos; Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible de la Nación: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2020; Available online: https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/informe_region_forestal_bosque_andino_patagonico_segunda_revision_0.rar (accessed on 24 May 2022).
- Gamundí, I.J.; Horak, E. Hongos de los Bosques Andino-Patagónicos; Vázquez Mazzini Editores: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1993; pp. 1–144. [Google Scholar]
- Barroetaveña, C.; Toledo, C. Diversity and ecology of edible mushrooms from Patagonia native forests, Argentina. In Mushrooms, Humans and Nature in a Changing World: Perspectives from Ecological, Agricultural and Social Sciences, 1st ed.; Perez-Moreno, J., Guerin-Laguette, A., Flores Arzú, R., Yu, F., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 297–318. [Google Scholar]
- Molares, S.; Toledo, C.V.; Stecher, G.; Barroetaveña, C. Traditional mycological knowledge and processes of change in Mapuche communities from Patagonia, Argentina: A study on wild edible fungi in Nothofagaceae forests. Mycologia 2020, 112, 9–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valenzuela-Flores. Hongos comestibles silvestres colectados en la X región de Chile. Boletín Micológico. 2003, 18, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toledo, C.V.; Barroetaveña, C.; Rajchenberg, M. Phenology and environmental variables associated to the fruiting of wild edible mushrooms from Andean-Patagonia forests in Argentina. Rev. Mex. Biodiv. 2014, 85, 1093–1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Barroetaveña, C.; Toledo, C.V. Hongos Silvestres Comestibles Novedosos en el Bosque Nativo y en las Plantaciones de Patagonia Andina, Argentina. Cienc. Investig. For. 2016, 22, 73–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González, G.C.; Barroetaveña, C.; Visnovsky, S.B.; Rajchenberg, M.; Pildain, M.B. A new species, phylogeny, and a worldwide key of the edible wood decay Fistulina (Agaricales). Mycol. Prog. 2021, 20, 733–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toledo, C.; Barroetaveña, C.; Fernandes, A.; Barros, L.; Ferreira, I. Chemical and antioxidant properties of wild edible mushrooms from native Nothofagus spp. forest, Argentina. Molecules 2016, 21, 1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kostić, M.; Ivanov, M.; Babić, S.S.; Petrović, J.; Soković, M.; Ćirić, A. An up-to-date review on bio-resource therapeutics effective against bacterial species frequently associated with chronic sinusitis and tonsillitis. Curr. Med. Chem. 2020, 27, 6892–6909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, Y.; Chen, D.; You, Y.; Zeng, S.; Li, Y.; Tang, Q.; Han, G.; Liu, A.; Feng, C.; Li, C.; et al. Nutritional composition of boletus mushrooms from Southwest China and their antihyperglycemic and antioxidant activities. Food Chem. 2016, 211, 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barroetaveña, C.; Pildain, M.B. Review: Edible fungi for local development in the Patagonian Andes of Argentina. For. Syst. 2022, in press.
- Pérez-Moreno, J.; Mortimer, P.E.; Ku, J.; Karunarathna, S.C.; Li, H. Global perspectives on the ecological, cultural and socioeconomic relevance of wild edible fungi. Stud. Fungi 2021, 6, 408–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rajchenberg, M. Polypores (Basidiomycetes) from the Patagonian Andes Forests of Argentina. In Bibliotheca Mycologica Band 201, J; Cramer Verlag: Stuttgart, Germany, 2006; 300p. [Google Scholar]
- Salgado Salomón, M.E.; Dresch, P.; Horak, E.; Galleguillos, F.; Barroetaveña, C.; Peintner, U. The enigmatic Cortinarius magellanicus complex occurring in Nothofagaceae forests of the Southern Hemisphere. Fungal Biol. 2018, 122, 1077–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Salgado Salomón, M.E.; Barroetaveña, C.; Niskanen, T.; Liimatainen, K.; Smith, M.E.; Peintner, U. Loose ends in the Cortinarius phylogeny: Five new myxotelamonoid species indicate a high diversity of these ectomycorrhizal fungi with South American Nothofagaceae. Life 2021, 11, 420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rajchenberg, M.; Pildain, M.B.; de Errasti, A.; Riquelme, C.; Becerra, J.; Torres-Díaz, C.; Cabrera-Pardo, J.R. Species and genera in Aleurodiscus sensu lato as viewed from the Southern Hemisphere. Mycologia 2021, 113, 1264–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rugolo, M.; Barroetaveña, C.; Barrett, M.D.; Mata, G.; Hood, I.A.; Rajchenberg, M.; Pildain, M.B. Phylogenetic relationships and taxonomy of Grifola (Polyporales). Mycol. Prog. 2022. accepted. [Google Scholar]
- González, G.; Barroetaveña, C.; Visnovsky, S.B.; Rajchenberg, M.; Pildain, M.B. Diversity of the Genus Ramaria in the Patagonian andes Forests of Argentina. Mycol. Prog. 2022. submitted. [Google Scholar]
- AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis, 20th ed.; Association of Official Analytical Chemists: Arlington, VA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Barros, L.; Pereira, C.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R. Optimized analysis of organic acids in edible mushrooms from Portugal by ultra fast liquid chromatography and photodiode array detection. Food Anal. Methods 2013, 6, 309–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pereira, E.; Barros, L.; Martins, A.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R. Towards chemical and nutritional inventory of Portuguese wild edible mushrooms in different habitats. Food Chem. 2012, 130, 394–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vieira Junior, W.G.; Centeio Cardoso, R.V.; Fernandes, A.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R.; Barros, L.; Pardo-Giménez, A.; Soares, D.M.M.; Stevani, C.V.; Zied, D.C. Influence of strains and environmental cultivation conditions on the bioconversion of ergosterol and vitamin D2 in the sun mushroom. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2021, 102, 1699–1706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cardoso, R.V.C.; Carocho, M.; Fernandes, A.; Cunha Zied, D.; Cobos, J.D.V.; González-Paramás, A.M.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R.; Barros, L. Influence of calcium silicate on the chemical properties of Pleurotus ostreatus var. florida (Jacq.) P. Kumm. J. Fungi 2020, 6, 299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bessada, S.M.; Barreira, J.C.M.; Barros, L.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R.; Oliveira, M.B.P.P. Phenolic profile and antioxidant activity of Coleostephus myconis (L.) Rchb. f.: An underexploited and highly disseminated species. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2016, 89, 45–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mandim, F.; Barros, L.; Calhelha, R.C.; Abreu, R.M.V.; Pinela, J.; Alves, M.J.; Heleno, S.; Santos, P.F.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R. Calluna vulgaris (L.) Hull: Chemical characterization, evaluation of its bioactive properties and effect on the vaginal microbiota. Food Funct. 2019, 10, 78–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lockowandt, L.; Pinela, J.; Roriz, C.L.; Pereira, C.; Abreu, R.M.; Calhelha, R.C.; Alves, M.J.; Barros, L.; Bredol, M.; Ferreira, I.C. Chemical features and bioactivities of cornflower (Centaurea cyanus L.) capitula: The blue flowers and the unexplored non-edible part. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2018, 128, 496–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pires, T.C.S.P.; Dias, M.I.; Barros, L.; Alves, M.J.; Oliveira, M.B.P.P.; Santos-Buelga, C.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R. Antioxidant and antimicrobial properties of dried Portuguese apple variety (Malus domestica Borkh. Cv Bravo de Esmolfe). Food Chem. 2018, 240, 701–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Heleno, S.A.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R.; Esteves, A.P.; Ćirić, A.; Glamočlija, J.; Martins, A.; Soković, M.; Queiroz, M.J.R.P. Antimicrobial and demelanizing activity of Ganoderma lucidum extract, p-hydroxybenzoic and cinnamic acids and their synthetic acetylated glucuronide methyl esters. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2013, 58, 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- R Studio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio; PBC: Boston, MA, USA, 2022; Available online: http://www.rstudio.com/ (accessed on 2 July 2022).
- Schmeda-Hirschmann, G.; Razmilic, I.; Gutierrez, M.I.; Loyola, J.I. Proximate composition and biological activity of food plants gathered by chilean Amerindians. Econ. Bot. 1999, 53, 177–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, S.T.; Miles, P.G. Mushrooms: Cultivation, Nutritional Value, Medicinal Effect and Environmental Impact, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2004; pp. 27–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richards, A.B.; Krakowka, S.; Dexter, L.B.; Schmid, H.; Wolterbeek, A.P.M.; Waalkens-Berendsen, D.H.; Shigoyuki, A.; Kurimoto, M. Trehalose: A review of properties, history of use and human tolerance, and results of multiple safety studies. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2002, 40, 871–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reis, F.S.; Barros, L.; Martins, A.; Ferreira, I.C. Chemical composition and nutritional value of the most widely appreciated cultivated mushrooms: An inter-species comparative study. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2012, 50, 191–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kölker, S. Organic acid disorders. In Encyclopedia of the Neurological Sciences, 2nd ed.; Aminoff, M.J., Daroff, R.B., Eds.; Academic Press: London, UK, 2014; pp. 688–693. [Google Scholar]
- Puiggrós, C.; Chacón, P.; Armadans, L.I.; Clapés, J.; Planas, M. Effects of oleic-rich and omega-3-rich diets on serum lipid pattern and lipid oxidation in mildly hypercholesterolemic patients. Clin. Nutr. 2002, 21, 79–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pacheco, Y.M.; López, S.; Bermúdez, B.; Abia, R.; Villar, J.; Muriana, F.J.G. A meal rich in oleic acid beneficially modulates postprandial sICAM-1 and sVCAM-1 in normotensive and hypertensive hypertriglyceridemic subjects. J. Nutr. Biochem. 2008, 19, 200–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sande, D.; Oliveira, G.P.; Moura, M.A.F.E.; Martins, B.A.; Lima, M.T.N.S.; Takahashi, J.A. Edible mushrooms as a ubiquitous source of essential fatty acids. Food Res. Int. 2019, 125, 108524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aires, D.; Capdevila, N.; Segundo, M.J. Ácidos grasos esenciales su influencia en las diferentes etapas de la vida. Offarm Farm. Y Soc. 2005, 24, 96–102. [Google Scholar]
- Lv, W.; Xu, D. Docosahexaenoic acid delivery systems, bioavailability, functionality and applications: A review. Foods 2022, 11, 2685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez-Crovetto, R. Estudios Etnobotánicos 4: Nombres de plantas y su utilidad, según los indios Onas de Tierra del Fuego. Bonplandia 1968, 3, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Domínguez Díaz, E. Flora de interés etnobotánico usada por los pueblos originarios: Aónikenk, Selk’nam, Kawésqar, Yagan y Haush en la Patagonia Austral. Dominguezia 2010, 26, 19–29. [Google Scholar]
- Jasinghe, V.J.; Perera, C.O. Distribution of ergosterol in different tissues of mushrooms and its effect on the conversion of ergosterol to vitamin D2 by UV irradiation. Food Chem. 2005, 92, 541–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Espinosa, N.A.Z.; Velásquez, J.M.A.; González, V.B.; Blanco, K.E.J.; Maya, G.C. Vitamin D: New paradigms. Med. Lab. 2011, 17, 211–246. [Google Scholar]
- Barros, L.; Dueñas, M.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R.; Baptista, P.; Santos-Buelga, C. Phenolic acids determination by HPLC-DAD-ESI/MS in sixteen different Portuguese wild mushrooms species. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2009, 47, 1076–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barros, L.; Baptista, P.; Correia, D.; Casal, S.; Oliveira, B.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R. Fatty acid and sugar compositions and nutritional value of five edible mushrooms from Northeast Portugal. Food Chem. 2007, 105, 140–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruijn, J.; Loyola, C.; Aqueveque, P.; Cañumir, J.; Cortéz, M.; France, A. Influence of heat treatment on the antioxidant properties of Grifola gargal hydro-alcoholic extracts. Micol. Apl. Int. 2008, 20, 27–34. [Google Scholar]
- Bruijn, J.; Loyola, C.; Aqueveque, P.; Cañumir, J.; Cortéz, M.; France, A. Antioxidant properties of extracts obtained from Grifola gargal mushrooms. Micol. Apl. Int. 2009, 21, 11–18. [Google Scholar]
- Postemsky, P.D.; Curvetto, N.R. Enhancement of wheat grain antioxidant activity by Solid-state fermentation with Grifola spp. J. Med. Food. 2014, 17, 543–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1.
Samples of the wild studied mushrooms. (A). Aleurodiscus vitellinus; (B). Fistulina antarctica; (C). Fistulina endoxantha; (D). Grifola sordulenta; (E). Cyclocybe aegerita; (F). Cyttaria hariotii; (G). Grifola gargal; (H). Lepista nuda; (I). Ramaria botrytis; (J). Cortinarius xiphidipus; (K). Ramaria patagonica; (L). Hydropus dusenii; (M). Lycoperdon perlatum; (N). Cortinarius magellanicus; (O). Pleurotus ostreatus; (P). Flammulina velutipes; (Q). Fistulina pumiliae.
Figure 1.
Samples of the wild studied mushrooms. (A). Aleurodiscus vitellinus; (B). Fistulina antarctica; (C). Fistulina endoxantha; (D). Grifola sordulenta; (E). Cyclocybe aegerita; (F). Cyttaria hariotii; (G). Grifola gargal; (H). Lepista nuda; (I). Ramaria botrytis; (J). Cortinarius xiphidipus; (K). Ramaria patagonica; (L). Hydropus dusenii; (M). Lycoperdon perlatum; (N). Cortinarius magellanicus; (O). Pleurotus ostreatus; (P). Flammulina velutipes; (Q). Fistulina pumiliae.
Table 1.
Proximate composition (g/100 g) and energetic value (kcal/100 g) of the studied wild mushrooms (mean ± SD). For each mushroom sample, means within a column with different letters differ significantly (p < 0.05).
Table 1.
Proximate composition (g/100 g) and energetic value (kcal/100 g) of the studied wild mushrooms (mean ± SD). For each mushroom sample, means within a column with different letters differ significantly (p < 0.05).
| Species | Total Fat | Crude Protein | Carbohydrates | Ash | Energy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. vitellinus | 4.70 ± 0.20b | 5.26 ± 0.01kl | 81.00 ± 1.00c | 8.90 ± 0.30ef | 387.74 ± 0.04bc |
| C. magellanicus | 4.40 ± 0.20b | 14.40 ± 0.10e | 49.00 ± 2.00i | 32.00 ± 1.00a | 293.00 ± 4.00i |
| C. xiphidipus | 2.01 ± 0.04e | 12.30 ± 0.40fg | 74.80 ± 0.10d | 10.9 ± 0.30d | 366.00 ± 1.00f |
| C. aegerita | 2.60 ± 0.20d | 10.70 ± 0.30h | 63.00 ± 1.00f | 23 ± 1.00b | 320.00 ± 5.00h |
| C. hariotii | 2.60 ± 0.20d | 5.87 ± 0.07jk | 86.20 ± 0.20b | 5.3 ± 0.30h | 392.00 ± 2.00ab |
| F. antarctica | 0.70 ± 0.02f | 3.20 ± 0.10m | 89.70 ± 0.20a | 6.4 ± 0.30g | 378.00 ± 1.00de |
| F. endoxantha | 0.77 ± 0.04f | 4.70 ± 0.20l | 80.00 ± 1.00 c | 15 ± 1.00c | 345.00 ± 2.00g |
| F. pumiliae | 1.02 ± 0.02f | 6.53 ± 0.04j | 82.00 ± 1.00c | 10 ± 1.00de | 364.00 ± 2.00f |
| F. velutipes | 1.70 ± 0.01e | 11.40 ± 0.30gh | 66.00 ± 1.00f | 21.20 ± 0.40b | 324.00 ± 2.00h |
| G. gargal | 5.90 ± 0.30a | 5.20 ± 0.10kl | 81.10 ± 0.10c | 7.90 ± 0.40f | 398.00 ± 3.00a |
| G. sordulenta | 1.90 ± 0.10e | 12.60 ± 0.10f | 71.00 ± 1.00e | 14.00 ± 1.00c | 353.00 ± 3.00g |
| H. dusenii | 3.10 ± 0.10cd | 22.00 ± 1.00c | 63.00 ± 1.00f | 11.30 ± 0.30d | 370.40 ± 0.40ef |
| L. nuda | 3.30 ± 0.20c | 30.30 ± 0.10b | 57.60 ± 0.20g | 8.70 ± 0.40f | 382.00 ± 3.00cd |
| L. perlatum | 3.32 ± 0.10c | 36.60 ± 0.10a | 52.00 ± 0.30h | 8.10 ± 0.40f | 384.00 ± 2.00bcd |
| P. ostreatus | 1.05 ± 0.05f | 7.65 ± 0.01i | 86.53 ± 0.01b | 4.80 ± 0.10h | 386.00 ± 1.00bcd |
| R. botrytis | 3.40 ± 0.10c | 12.60 ± 0.40f | 73.00 ± 1.00de | 11.00 ± 1.00d | 373.00 ± 1.00ef |
| R. patagonica | 0.90 ± 0.02f | 18.10 ± 0.20d | 72.40 ± 0.30de | 8.60 ± 0.10f | 370.00 ± 1.00ef |
Table 2.
Organic acid and sugar composition (mg/100 g) of the studied wild mushrooms (mean ± SD). For each mushroom sample, means within a column with different letters differ significantly (p < 0.05).
Table 2.
Organic acid and sugar composition (mg/100 g) of the studied wild mushrooms (mean ± SD). For each mushroom sample, means within a column with different letters differ significantly (p < 0.05).
| Organic Acids | Sugars | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species | Oxalic | Quinic | Malic | Shikimic | Citric | Succinic | Fumaric | Not Identified | Fructose | Mannitol | Trehalose |
| A. vitellinus | nd | nd | 74.58 ± 1.03a | nd | 31.10 ± 0.40b | 452.00 ± 2.00a | 0.05 ± 0.01n | 0.17 ± 0.01i | nd | 8.80 ± 0.10a | 3.16 ± 0.03hi |
| C. magellanicus | 2.02 ± 0.05fg | nd | 10.90 ± 0.30f | nd | 57.40 ± 0.03a | 8.10 ± 0.20d | 11.02 ± 0.02a | 0.15 ± 0.01i | nd | 4.80 ± 0.20c | 3.04 ± 0.12hi |
| C. xiphidipus | 0.93 ± 0.01gh | 542.00 ± 3.00a | nd | nd | nd | nd | 3.93 ± 0.01c | nd | 0.70 ± 0.01e | 3.30 ± 0.10d | 17.60 ± 0.40a |
| C. aegerita | 0.49 ± 0.01jk | nd | 17.29 ± 0.04d | 0.72 ± 0.04b | nd | nd | 3.40 ± 0.02e | nd | 0.31 ± 0.02f | 1.22 ± 0.04g | 13.54 ± 0.02c |
| C. hariotii | 0.09 ± 0.01m | nd | 13.40 ± 0.30e | nd | 23.40 ± 0.20a | nd | 2.39 ± 0.01i | 3.19 ± 0.02d | 2.10 ± 0.10c | 0.33 ± 0.01j | 2.10 ± 0.10j |
| F. antarctica | 0.05 ± 0.02m | 0.50 ± 0.10b | 13.60 ± 0.30e | nd | nd | nd | 2.54 ± 0.01h | 12.00 ± 1.00a | 10 ± 1.00b | 1.00 ± 0.10h | 8.00 ± 1.00e |
| F. endoxantha | 0.35 ± 0.01lm | nd | 16.80 ± 1.10d | nd | nd | nd | 5.34 ± 0.04b | 7.00 ± 0.40b | 23.18 ± 1.02a | nd | 3.70 ± 0.10h |
| F. pumiliae | 0.44 ± 0.01kl | nd | 35.00 ± 1.00b | nd | nd | nd | 5.33 ± 0.01b | 6.60 ± 0.30b | 9.10 ± 0.40b | 3.40 ± 0.10d | 5.30 ± 0.20fg |
| F. velutipes | 3.90 ± 0.10cd | nd | 32.60 ± 0.50b | nd | nd | nd | 5.40 ± 0.02b | 1.87 ± 0.01e | 8.60 ± 0.10b | 1.64 ± 0.02f | 4.70 ± 0.40g |
| G. gargal | 2.40 ± 0.10ef | nd | 1.90 ± 0.02h | nd | nd | nd | 0.34 ± 0.01m | 0.16 ± 0.01i | 0.77 ± 0.04d | 0.25 ± 0.01k | 2.50 ± 0.10ij |
| G. sordulenta | 0.72 ± 0.02hi | nd | 21.40 ± 0.30c | nd | nd | nd | 2.79 ± 0.02g | nd | 0.30 ± 0.01f | 0.50 ± 0.02i | 11.30 ± 0.20d |
| H. dusenii | 3.39 ± 0.03de | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | 1.74 ± 0.01j | 0.26 ± 0.02h | 0.18 ± 0.01g | 2.30 ± 0.10e | 5.70 ± 0.10f |
| L. nuda | 66.70 ± 1.90a | 488.00 ± 38.00a | nd | nd | nd | 277.00 ± 2.00b | 1.31 ± 0.01k | 0.57 ± 0.01g | 0.17 ± 0.01g | 1.29 ± 0.01g | 7.10 ± 0.10e |
| L. perlatum | 4.90 ± 0.10def | nd | 8.70 ± 0.20g | nd | nd | 87.00 ± 3.00c | 1.20 ± 0.10l | 3.88 ± 0.03c | nd | nd | 5.50 ± 0.10fg |
| P. ostreatus | 0.59 ± 0.03ij | nd | 11.90 ± 0.30ef | 1.07 ± 0.03a | nd | 83.00 ± 1.00c | 2.54 ± 0.01h | nd | nd | 3.30 ± 0.10d | 15.80 ± 0.40b |
| R. botrytis | 25.36 ± 0.02b | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | 3.02 ± 0.02f | 1.59 ± 0.05f | 0.76 ± 0.04de | 6.34 ± 0.04b | Nd |
| R. patagonica | 25.60 ± 0.10ab | nd | nd | nd | 57.30 ± 0.80c | nd | 3.67 ± 0.01d | nd | 0.86 ± 0.04d | 8.60 ± 0.40a | Nd |
Table 3.
Fatty acid composition (%) of the studied wild mushrooms (mean ± SD). (C8:0) caprylic acid; (C10:0) capric acid; (C11:0) undecanoic acid; (C12:0) lauric acid; (C13:0) tridecanoic acid; (C14:0) myristic acid; (C15:0) pentadecanoic acid; (C16:0) palmitic acid; (C16:1) palmitoleic acid; (C17:0) heptadecanoic acid; (C18:0) stearic acid; (C18:1n9) oleic acid; (C18:2n6) linoleic acid; (C18:3n3) α-linolenic acid; (C20:0) arachidic acid; (C20:1) cis-11-eicosaenoic acid; (C20:2) cis-11,14-eicosadienoic acid; (C20:4n6) arachidonic acid; (C20:5n3) cis-5,8,11,14,17-eicosapentaenoic acid; (C21:0) heneicosanoic acid; (C22:0) behenic acid; (C22:1) erucic acid; (C22:2) Cis-13,16-docosadienoic acid; (C23:0) tricosanoic acid; (C24:0) lignoceric acid; (C24:1) nervonic acid; (C22:6n3) docosahexaenoic acid; (SFAs) saturated fatty acids; (MUFAs) monounsaturated fatty acids; (PUFAs) polyunsaturated fatty acids. For each mushroom sample, means within a column with different letters differ significantly (p < 0.05).
Table 3.
Fatty acid composition (%) of the studied wild mushrooms (mean ± SD). (C8:0) caprylic acid; (C10:0) capric acid; (C11:0) undecanoic acid; (C12:0) lauric acid; (C13:0) tridecanoic acid; (C14:0) myristic acid; (C15:0) pentadecanoic acid; (C16:0) palmitic acid; (C16:1) palmitoleic acid; (C17:0) heptadecanoic acid; (C18:0) stearic acid; (C18:1n9) oleic acid; (C18:2n6) linoleic acid; (C18:3n3) α-linolenic acid; (C20:0) arachidic acid; (C20:1) cis-11-eicosaenoic acid; (C20:2) cis-11,14-eicosadienoic acid; (C20:4n6) arachidonic acid; (C20:5n3) cis-5,8,11,14,17-eicosapentaenoic acid; (C21:0) heneicosanoic acid; (C22:0) behenic acid; (C22:1) erucic acid; (C22:2) Cis-13,16-docosadienoic acid; (C23:0) tricosanoic acid; (C24:0) lignoceric acid; (C24:1) nervonic acid; (C22:6n3) docosahexaenoic acid; (SFAs) saturated fatty acids; (MUFAs) monounsaturated fatty acids; (PUFAs) polyunsaturated fatty acids. For each mushroom sample, means within a column with different letters differ significantly (p < 0.05).
| Species | A. vitellinus | C. magellanicus | C. xiphidipus | C. aegerita | C. hariotii | F. antarctica | F. endoxantha | F. pumiliae | F. velutipes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C8:0 | nd | 0.63 ± 0.02b | nd | 0.05 ± 0.01d | nd | nd | nd | 0.81 ± 0.02a | nd |
| C10:0 | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd |
| C11:0 | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | 1.50 ± 0.03a | 0.86 ± 0.04b | 1.70 ± 0.03a |
| C12:0 | nd | 0.11 ± 0.01c | nd | 0.10 ± 0.01c | nd | 0.28 ± 0.01b | nd | nd | nd |
| C13:0 | 0.15 ± 0.04cd | 0.37 ± 0.01a | 0.18 ± 0.01bcd | 0.24 ± 0.01b | 0.13 ± 0.01d | nd | nd | nd | nd |
| C14:0 | 0.28 ± 0.01g | 0.35 ± 0.01f | 0.23 ± 0.01gh | 0.37 ± 0.01ef | 0.22 ± 0.01hi | 1.33 ± 0.02b | 1.80 ± 0.05ab | 2.4 ± 0.10a | nd |
| C15:0 | 0.82 ± 0.01g | 1.47 ± 0.03d | 0.50 ± 0.01i | 0.44 ± 0.01j | 0.15 ± 0.01l | 0.71 ± 0.01g | 1.58 ± 0.04c | 1.66 ± 0.04c | nd |
| C16:0 | 21.90 ± 0.1d | 53.40 ± 0.20b | 17.00 ± 1.00f | 19.60 ± 0.10e | 17.30 ± 0.20f | 18.30 ± 0.10e | 51.10 ± 0.70b | 52.6 ± 0.50b | 61.00 ± 1.00a |
| C16:1 | 1.70 ± 0.04a | 0.61 ± 0.02d | 0.31 ± 0.01f | 0.57 ± 0.01d | nd | 0.63 ± 0.03d | 1.40 ± 0.01b | nd | nd |
| C17:0 | 0.16 ± 0.01h | nd | 0.14 ± 0.01i | 0.21 ± 0.01g | 0.19 ± 0.01g | nd | 3.19 ± 0.05c | 5.4 ± 0.20a | nd |
| C18:0 | 4.40 ± 0.01de | 7.49 ± 0.02b | 3.2 ± 0.10h | 5.10 ± 0.10c | 4.65 ± 0.03cd | 2.92 ± 0.02h | 7.10 ± 0.30b | nd | nd |
| C18:1n9t | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | 5.9 ± 0.10c | nd |
| C18:1n9c | 52.60 ± 0.10b | 19.9 ± 0.10l | 31.30 ± 0.50g | 20.2 ± 0.20k | 6.50 ± 0.10m | 26.80 ± 0.30j | 32.40 ± 0.30f | 30.3 ± 0.10h | nd |
| C18:2n6t | 0.22 ± 0.01f | nd | 1.3 ± 0.10c | 1.75 ± 0.02b | 0.58 ± 0.01d | nd | nd | nd | 37.00 ± 10.00 a |
| C18:2n6c | 13.50 ± 0.10j | 12.3 ± 0.10k | 40.4 ± 0.30e | 44.70 ± 0.20d | 25.10 ± 0.20i | 48.30 ± 0.20c | nd | nd | nd |
| C18:3n3 | 0.96 ± 0.01b | nd | nd | 0.14 ± 0.01d | 12.50 ± 0.10a | nd | nd | nd | nd |
| C20:0 | 0.74 ± 0.02f | 1.10 ± 0.01bc | 0.80 ± 0.01de | 0.77 ± 0.01ef | 2.90 ± 0.10a | nd | nd | nd | nd |
| C20:1 | 0.22 ±0.01h | nd | 0.75 ± 0.02d | 0.67 ± 0.01e | 0.43 ± 0.01f | nd | nd | nd | nd |
| C20:2 | 0.73 ± 0.04d | nd | 0.85 ± 0.02d | 1.10 ± 0.01c | 1.50 ± 0.10b | nd | nd | nd | nd |
| C20:4n6 | nd | nd | nd | nd | 0.44 ± 0.01 | nd | nd | nd | nd |
| C20:5n3 | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd |
| C21:0 | nd | nd | nd | 0.69 ± 0.01a | 0.25 ± 0.01b | nd | nd | nd | nd |
| C22:0 | 0.55 ± 0.01h | nd | 1.11 ± 0.01c | 0.79 ± 0.01f | 7.40 ± 0.10a | 0.46 ± 0.01h | nd | nd | nd |
| C22:1 | nd | 1.8 ± 0.10a | 0.24 ± 0.01b | 0.29 ± 0.01b | 0.27 ± 0.01b | nd | nd | nd | nd |
| C22:2 | nd | nd | nd | 0.33 ± 0.01c | 0.46 ± 0.01b | nd | nd | nd | nd |
| C23:0 | 0.19 ± 0.01d | 0.42 ± 0.01c | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | |
| C24:0 | 0.47 ± 0.01f | nd | 0.53 ± 0.01f | 0.90 ± 0.02d | 6.75 ± 0.02a | 0.44 ± 0.01f | nd | nd | nd |
| C24:1 | 0.07 ± 0.01g | nd | 0.71 ± 0.02c | 0.36 ± 0.01d | 4.47 ± 0.05a | nd | nd | nd | nd |
| C22:6n3 | 0.27 ± 0.01d | nd | 0.38 ± 0.01c | 0.69 ± 0.02b | 7.74 ± 0.01a | nd | nd | nd | nd |
| SFAs | 29.70 ± 0.10gh | 65.40 ± 0.20b | 23.70 ± 0.40i | 29.20 ± 0.01h | 39.90 ± 0.20ef | 24.40 ± 0.05i | 66.20 ± 0.30a | 63.80 ± 0.20c | 63.00 ± 1.00cd |
| MUFAs | 54.60 ± 0.10ab | 22.40 ± 0.10i | 33.00 ± 1.00g | 22.10 ± 0.20i | 11.70 ± 0.10j | 27.30 ± 0.20h | 33.80 ± 0.30g | 36.20 ± 0.20ef | nd |
| PUFAs | 15.73 ± 0.01i | 12.30 ± 0.10j | 43.00 ± 0.20d | 48.70 ± 0.20c | 48.40 ± 0.20c | 48.30 ± 0.20c | nd | nd | 37.00 ± 1.00f |
| Species | G. gargal | G. sordulenta | H. dusenii | L. nuda | L. perlatum | P. ostreatus | R. botrytis | R. patagonica | |
| C8:0 | nd | nd | 0.25 ± 0.01c | Nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | |
| C10:0 | nd | nd | Nd | nd | nd | 0.40 ± 0.02 | nd | nd | |
| C11:0 | nd | nd | Nd | nd | nd | 0.84 ± 0.01b | nd | 0.17 ± 0.01c | |
| C12:0 | nd | 0.23 ± 0.01b | 0.11 ± 0.01c | nd | nd | 0.37 ± 0.01a | nd | nd | |
| C13:0 | nd | 0.20 ± 0.01bc | 0.15 ± 0.01cd | nd | nd | 0.41 ± 0.02a | nd | nd | |
| C14:0 | nd | 1.20 ± 0.04bc | 0.36 ± 0.01f | 0.36 ± 0.01f | 0.47 ± 0.01de | 0.77 ± 0.02cd | nd | 0.17 ± 0.01i | |
| C15:0 | nd | 3.23 ± 0.03b | 1.12 ± 0.01e | 0.30 ± 0.01k | nd | 5.40 ± 0.10a | 0.86 ± 0.01f | 0.60 ± 0.01h | |
| C16:0 | 20.00 ± 1.00e | 21.33 ± 0.03d | 27.30 ± 0.1c | 15.40 ± 0.20g | 17.00 ± 1.00f | 53.00 ± 1.00b | 9.67 ± 0.02i | 13.90 ± 0.10h | |
| C16:1 | 0.63 ± 0.01d | nd | Nd | 0.74 ± 0.02c | nd | nd | nd | 0.43 ± 0.01e | |
| C17:0 | nd | 1.46 ± 0.04d | 0.49 ± 0.02f | nd | nd | 4.20 ± 0.20b | 1.50 ± 0.02d | 0.77 ± 0.01e | |
| C17:1 | nd | nd | Nd | nd | nd | nd | 0.30 ± 0.01a | 0.29 ± 0.01a | |
| C18:0 | 8.90 ± 0.10a | 3.94 ± 0.05fg | 9.32 ± 0.03a | 2.05 ± 0.05i | 3.19 ± 0.05h | nd | 4.01 ± 0.01ef | 3.70 ± 0.10g | |
| C18:1n9t | nd | nd | Nd | nd | 11.50 ± 0.10a | 7.43 ± 0.02b | nd | nd | |
| C18:1n9c | 58.20 ± 0.20a | 28.90 ± 0.10i | 46.80 ± 0.03c | 25.50 ± 0.10j | nd | 27.00 ± 1.00j | 42.67 ± 0.01d | 37.60 ± 0.10e | |
| C18:2n6t | nd | 0.39 ± 0.02e | Nd | nd | nd | nd | 0.19 ± 0.01g | nd | |
| C18:2n6c | 11.10 ± 0.30l | 31.45 ± 0.01h | 1.53 ± 0.04m | 54.30 ± 0.10b | 68.00 ± 1.00a | nd | 35.04 ± 0.01g | 38.14 ± 0.02f | |
| C18:3n3 | 0.50 ± 0.02c | nd | Nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | |
| C20:0 | nd | 2.92 ± 0.01a | 1.78 ± 0.01b | nd | nd | nd | 0.89 ± 0.01cd | nd | |
| C20:1 | nd | 1.50 ± 0.03b | 3.48 ± 0.04a | nd | nd | nd | 0.33 ± 0.01g | 0.88 ± 0.04c | |
| C20:2 | nd | nd | 1.76 ± 0.01a | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | |
| C20:4n6 | nd | nd | Nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | |
| C20:5n3 | nd | nd | Nd | nd | nd | nd | 0.29 ± 0.01 | nd | |
| C21:0 | nd | nd | Nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | nd | |
| C22:0 | 0.33 ± 0.01i | 0.97 ± 0.01d | 0.73 ± 0.01g | 0.55 ± 0.01h | nd | nd | 1.56 ± 0.01b | 0.95 ± 0.02e | |
| C22:1 | nd | nd | Nd | nd | nd | nd | 0.48 ± 0.01ab | nd | |
| C22:2 | nd | 1.15 ± 0.04a | Nd | nd | nd | nd | 0.25 ± 0.01d | nd | |
| C23:0 | nd | nd | 0.28 ± 0.01d | nd | nd | nd | 0.78 ± 0.01b | 1.15 ± 0.01a | |
| C24:0 | 0.51 ± 0.02f | 0.99 ± 0.01cd | 1.62 ± 0.01b | 0.50 ± 0.02f | nd | nd | 0.71 ± 0.02e | 1.03 ± 0.02c | |
| C24:1 | nd | nd | 2.32 ± 0.01b | 0.33 ± 0.01d | nd | nd | 0.14 ± 0.01f | 0.18 ± 0.01e | |
| C22:6n3 | 0.12 ± 0.01f | 0.14 ± 0.01e | 0.65 ± 0.01b | nd | nd | nd | 0.34 ± 0.01c | 0.08 ± 0.02g | |
| SFA | 29.40 ± 0.40h | 36.47 ± 0.03fg | 43.47 ± 0.04de | 19.10 ± 0.20k | 20.66 ± 1.00 j | 66.00 ± 1.00b | 19.98 ± 0.01j | 22.42 ± 0.02i | |
| MUFA | 58.90 ± 0.20a | 30.40 ± 0.10h | 52.60 ± 0.01bc | 26.60 ± 0.10h | 11.50 ± 0.10j | 34.00 ± 1.00f | 43.91 ± 0.01cd | 39.37 ± 0.01de | |
| PUFA | 11.70 ± 0.30k | 33.10 ± 0.10h | 3.93 ± 0.04l | 54.30 ± 0.10b | 68.00 ± 1.00a | nd | 36.11 ± 0.02g | 38.22 ± 0.02e | |
Table 4.
Ergosterol content expressed in mg/100 g dw. For each mushroom sample, means within a column with different letters differ significantly (p < 0.05).
Table 4.
Ergosterol content expressed in mg/100 g dw. For each mushroom sample, means within a column with different letters differ significantly (p < 0.05).
| Species | Ergosterol |
|---|---|
| A. vitellinus | 21.50 ± 0.40defg |
| C. magellanicus | 38.00 ± 9.00de |
| C. xiphidipus | 34.00 ± 9.00def |
| C. aegerita | 72.00 ± 10.00b |
| C. hariotii | 0.40 ± 0.10g |
| F. antarctica | 16.00 ± 1.00efg |
| F. endoxantha | 45.00 ± 1.00cd |
| F. pumiliae | 71.00 ± 14.00b |
| F. velutipes | 32.00 ± 2.00defg |
| G. gargal | 123.57 ± 12.00a |
| G. sordulenta | 29.00 ± 9.00def |
| H. dusenii | 16.00 ± 1.00efg |
| L. nuda | 13.00 ± 0.40efg |
| L. perlatum | 31.00 ± 1.00def |
| P. ostreatus | 32.00 ± 2.00defg |
| R. botrytis | 68.50 ± 0.30bc |
| R. patagonica | 13.00 ± 1.00fg |
Table 5.
Phenol content expressed in mg/g. For each mushroom sample, means within a column with different letters differ significantly (p < 0.05).
Table 5.
Phenol content expressed in mg/g. For each mushroom sample, means within a column with different letters differ significantly (p < 0.05).
| Species | p-Coumaric Acid | Gallic Acid | p-Hidroxibenzoic Acid | Protocatechuic Acid | 3-(3,4-Dihydroxyphenyl)-lactic Acid | Galic Acid Monohidrate | Total Phenols |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. vitellinus | nd | 1.94 + 0.05h | Nd | nd | nd | nd | 1.94 + 0.05i |
| C. magellanicus | nd | 5.79 + 0.23c | 1.34 + 0.02e | 0.85 + 0.01e | nd | nd | 7.90 + 0.20d |
| C. xiphidipus | nd | 7.36 + 0.07a | 1.60 + 0.10d | 1.16 + 0.02d | nd | nd | 10.20 + 0.10c |
| C. aegerita | 0.83 + 0.01b | 4.91 + 0.04d | 4.10 + 0.10c | 0.69 + 0.01f | nd | 1.19 + 0.04 | 11.70 + 0.10b |
| C. hariotii | nd | 0.80 + 0.01j | Nd | nd | nd | nd | 0.80 + 0.01l |
| F. antarctica | nd | 1.00 + 0.05j | Nd | 0.15 + 0.01h | 0.10 + 0.01c | nd | 1.30 + 0.10k |
| F. endoxantha | nd | 2.03 + 0.04h | 5.90 + 0.10b | 7.65 + 0.04a | 1.75 + 0.02a | nd | 11.40 + 0.10b |
| F. pumiliae | nd | 1.43 + 0.01i | 0.55 + 0.02g | 0.69 + 0.01f | 1.01 + 0.02b | nd | 3.12 + 0.02h |
| F. velutipes | nd | 2.84 + 0.04g | Nd | nd | nd | nd | 2.84 + 0.04h |
| G. gargal | nd | 3.58 + 0.03f | Nd | 0.56 + 0.02g | nd | nd | 4.20 + 0.10g |
| G. sordulenta | nd | 1.74 + 0.11hi | nd | nd | nd | nd | 1.70 + 0.10ij |
| H. dusenii | nd | 4.40 + 0.15e | nd | nd | nd | nd | 4.40 + 0.12fg |
| L. nuda | 0.22 + 0.01c | 3.61 + 0.05f | 0.87 + 0.02f | nd | nd | nd | 4.70 + 0.10f |
| L. perlatum | 4.32 + 0.04a | 6.75 + 0.13b | 40.30 + 0.30a | nd | nd | nd | 51.40 + 0.20a |
| P. ostreatus | nd | 0.80 + 0.03j | 0.56 + 0.02g | nd | nd | 1.40 + 0.10jk | |
| R. botrytis | nd | 3.84 + 0.12f | nd | 2.90 + 0.10c | nd | nd | 6.80 + 0.20e |
| R. patagonica | nd | 2.54 + 0.04g | nd | 5.30 + 0.07b | nd | nd | 7.80 + 0.10d |
Table 6.
Antioxidant activity of the mushroom extracts measured by inhibition of lipid peroxidation (TBARS) and the oxidative hemolysis inhibition assay (OxHLIA). IC50 values were expressed in µg/mL. na: no activity (Δt values less than 60 min were obtained). For each mushroom sample, means within a column with different letters differ significantly (p < 0.05).
Table 6.
Antioxidant activity of the mushroom extracts measured by inhibition of lipid peroxidation (TBARS) and the oxidative hemolysis inhibition assay (OxHLIA). IC50 values were expressed in µg/mL. na: no activity (Δt values less than 60 min were obtained). For each mushroom sample, means within a column with different letters differ significantly (p < 0.05).
| Species | TBARS | OxHLIA |
|---|---|---|
| A. vitellinus | 551.00 ± 9.00hi | 113.00 ± 7.00i |
| C. magellanicus | 688.00 ± 268.00hi | Na |
| C. xiphidipus | 1206.00 ± 200.00def | 672.00 ± 9.00b |
| C. aegerita | 2426.00 ± 50.00ab | 202.00 ± 14.00g |
| C. hariotii | 1468.00 ± 82.00cde | Na |
| F. antarctica | 2627.00 ± 189.00a | 1066.00 ± 81.00a |
| F. endoxantha | 1132.00 ± 8.00ef | 335.00 ± 8.00de |
| F. pumiliae | 1019.00 ± 20.00fg | 285.00 ± 13.00ef |
| F. velutipes | 1543.00 ± 100.00bcd | 426.00 ± 53.00c |
| G. gargal | 633.00 ± 15.00h | 376.00 ± 17.00cd |
| G. sordulenta | 299.00 ± 31.00ij | 155.00 ± 7.00h |
| H. dusenii | 610.00 ± 17.00h | 220.00 ± 11.00g |
| L. nuda | 711.00 ± 185.00gh | 93.00 ± 6.00i |
| L. perlatum | 1217.00 ± 564.00def | 90.00 ± 4.00i |
| P. ostreatus | 2052.00 ± 276.00abc | Na |
| R. botrytis | 167.00 ± 14.00j | 249.00 ± 12.00fg |
| R. patagonica | 156.00 ± 12.00j | Na |
| Control/Trolox | 18.40 ± 0.10k | 21.80 ± 0.30j |
Table 7.
Antimicrobial activity of all the extracts against selected food-contaminating bacteria and fungi. The maximum concentration used was 10 mg/mL. MIC: Minimum inhibitory concentration; MBC: Minimum bactericidal concentration; MFC: Minimum fungicidal concentration; n.t. not tested.
Table 7.
Antimicrobial activity of all the extracts against selected food-contaminating bacteria and fungi. The maximum concentration used was 10 mg/mL. MIC: Minimum inhibitory concentration; MBC: Minimum bactericidal concentration; MFC: Minimum fungicidal concentration; n.t. not tested.
| Positive Control | |||||||||||||||||||
| AV | CM | CX | CA | CH | Streptomicin 1 mg/mL | Methicilin 1 mg/mL | Ampicillin 10 mg/mL | ||||||||||||
| Antibacterial Activity | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | |||
| Gram-negative bacteria | |||||||||||||||||||
| Enterobacter cloacae | 10 | >10 | 10 | >10 | 10 | >10 | 10 | >10 | 10 | >10 | 0.007 | 0.007 | n.t. | n.t. | 0.15 | 0.15 | |||
| Escherichia coli | 5 | >10 | 10 | >10 | 10 | >10 | 10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | 0.01 | 0.01 | n.t. | n.t. | 0.15 | 0.15 | |||
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | 0.06 | 0.06 | n.t. | n.t. | 0.63 | 0.63 | |||
| Salmonella enterocolitica | 2.5 | >10 | 5 | >10 | 5 | >10 | 5 | >10 | 10 | >10 | 0.007 | 0.007 | n.t. | n.t. | 0.15 | 0.15 | |||
| Yersinia enterocolitica | 1.25 | >10 | >10 | >10 | 10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | 10 | >10 | 0.007 | 0.007 | n.t. | n.t. | 0.15 | 0.15 | |||
| Gram-positive bacteria | |||||||||||||||||||
| Bacillus cereus | 10 | >10 | 10 | >10 | 10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | 10 | >10 | 0.007 | 0.007 | n.t. | n.t. | n.t. | n.t. | |||
| Listeria monocytogenes | 10 | >10 | 10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | 0.007 | 0.007 | n.t. | n.t. | 0.15 | 0.15 | |||
| Staphylococcus aureus | 1.25 | >10 | 5 | >10 | 0.6 | >10 | 1.25 | >10 | 10 | >10 | 0.007 | 0.007 | 0.007 | 0.007 | 0.15 | 0.15 | |||
| Ketaconazole 1mg/mL | |||||||||||||||||||
| Antifungal Activity | MIC | MFC | MIC | MFC | MIC | MFC | MIC | MFC | MIC | MFC | MIC | MFC | |||||||
| Aspergillus brasiliensis | 10 | >10 | 2.5 | >10 | 2.5 | >10 | 2.5 | >10 | 5 | >10 | 0.06 | 0.125 | |||||||
| Aspergillus fumigatus | 0.07 | 0.15 | 0.07 | 0.15 | 0.07 | 0.15 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | 0.5 | 1 | |||||||
| Positive Control | |||||||||||||||||||
| FA | FE | FP | FV | GG | GS | Streptomicin 1 mg/mL | Methicilin 1 mg/mL | Ampicillin 10 mg/mL | |||||||||||
| Antibacterial Activity | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | |
| Gram-negative bacteria | |||||||||||||||||||
| Enterobacter cloacae | 10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | 10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | 10 | >10 | 10 | >10 | 0.007 | 0.007 | n.t. | n.t. | 0.15 | 0.15 | |
| Escherichia coli | 10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | 10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | 10 | >10 | 0.01 | 0.01 | n.t. | n.t. | 0.15 | 0.15 | |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | 0.06 | 0.06 | n.t. | n.t. | 0.63 | 0.63 | |
| Salmonella enterocolitica | 5 | >10 | 10 | >10 | 5 | >10 | 5 | >10 | 10 | >10 | 5 | >10 | 0.007 | 0.007 | n.t. | n.t. | 0.15 | 0.15 | |
| Yersinia enterocolitica | 10 | >10 | 10 | >10 | 5 | >10 | 2.5 | >10 | 2.5 | >10 | 10 | >10 | 0.007 | 0.007 | n.t. | n.t. | 0.15 | 0.15 | |
| Gram-positive bacteria | |||||||||||||||||||
| Bacillus cereus | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | 5 | >10 | 5 | >10 | 10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | 0.007 | 0.007 | n.t. | n.t. | n.t. | n.t. | |
| Listeria monocytogenes | 10 | >10 | 5 | >10 | 10 | >10 | 10 | >10 | 10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | 0.007 | 0.007 | n.t. | n.t. | 0.15 | 0.15 | |
| Staphylococcus aureus | 1.25 | >10 | 0.6 | >10 | 0.6 | >10 | 0.6 | >10 | 10 | >10 | 0.3 | >10 | 0.007 | 0.007 | 0.007 | 0.007 | 0.15 | 0.15 | |
| Ketaconazole 1 mg/mL | |||||||||||||||||||
| Antifungal Activity | MIC | MFC | MIC | MFC | MIC | MFC | MIC | MFC | MIC | MFC | MIC | MFC | MIC | MFC | |||||
| Aspergillus brasiliensis | 2.5 | >10 | 5 | >10 | 2.5 | >10 | 1.25 | >10 | 5 | >10 | 5 | >10 | 0.06 | 0.125 | |||||
| Aspergillus fumigatus | >10 | >10 | 0.07 | 0.15 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | 0.5 | 1 | |||||
| Positive Control | |||||||||||||||||||
| HD | LN | LP | PO | RB | RP | Streptomicin 1 mg/mL | Methicilin 1 mg/mL | Ampicillin 10 mg/mL | |||||||||||
| Antibacterial Activity | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | MIC | MBC | |
| Gram-negative bacteria | |||||||||||||||||||
| Enterobacter cloacae | 10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | 10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | 10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | 0.007 | 0.007 | n.t. | n.t. | 0.15 | 0.15 | |
| Escherichia coli | 10 | >10 | 10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | 5 | >10 | 10 | >10 | 10 | >10 | 0.01 | 0.01 | n.t. | n.t. | 0.15 | 0.15 | |
| Pseudomonas aeruginosa | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | 0.06 | 0.06 | n.t. | n.t. | 0.63 | 0.63 | |
| Salmonella enterocolitica | 5 | >10 | 5 | >10 | 10 | >10 | 5 | >10 | 5 | >10 | 5 | >10 | 0.007 | 0.007 | n.t. | n.t. | 0.15 | 0.15 | |
| Yersinia enterocolitica | 5 | >10 | 5 | >10 | >10 | >10 | 2.5 | >10 | 1.25 | >10 | 5 | >10 | 0.007 | 0.007 | n.t. | n.t. | 0.15 | 0.15 | |
| Gram-positive bacteria | |||||||||||||||||||
| Bacillus cereus | 10 | >10 | 5 | >10 | 5 | >10 | >10 | >10 | 10 | >10 | 5 | >10 | 0.007 | 0.007 | n.t. | n.t. | n.t. | n.t. | |
| Listeria monocytogenes | >10 | >10 | 10 | >10 | 5 | >10 | 10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | 10 | >10 | 0.007 | 0.007 | n.t. | n.t. | 0.15 | 0.15 | |
| Staphylococcus aureus | 0.6 | >10 | 0.6 | >10 | 2.5 | >10 | 0.6 | >10 | 0.3 | >10 | 2.5 | >10 | 0.007 | 0.007 | 0.007 | 0.007 | 0.15 | 0.15 | |
| Ketaconazole 1 mg/mL | |||||||||||||||||||
| Antifungal Activity | MIC | MFC | MIC | MFC | MIC | MFC | MIC | MFC | MIC | MFC | MIC | MFC | MIC | MFC | |||||
| Aspergillus brasiliensis | 1.25 | >10 | 2.5 | >10 | 2.5 | >10 | 2.5 | >10 | 5 | >10 | 5 | >10 | 0.06 | 0.125 | |||||
| Aspergillus fumigatus | 0.07 | 0.15 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | >10 | 0.07 | 0.15 | 0.50 | 1 | |||||
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Rugolo, M.; Mascoloti Spréa, R.; Dias, M.I.; Pires, T.C.S.P.; Añibarro-Ortega, M.; Barroetaveña, C.; Caleja, C.; Barros, L. Nutritional Composition and Bioactive Properties of Wild Edible Mushrooms from Native Nothofagus Patagonian Forests. Foods 2022, 11, 3516. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/foods11213516
AMA Style
Rugolo M, Mascoloti Spréa R, Dias MI, Pires TCSP, Añibarro-Ortega M, Barroetaveña C, Caleja C, Barros L. Nutritional Composition and Bioactive Properties of Wild Edible Mushrooms from Native Nothofagus Patagonian Forests. Foods. 2022; 11(21):3516. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/foods11213516
Chicago/Turabian StyleRugolo, Maximiliano, Rafael Mascoloti Spréa, Maria Inês Dias, Tânia C. S. P. Pires, Mikel Añibarro-Ortega, Carolina Barroetaveña, Cristina Caleja, and Lillian Barros. 2022. "Nutritional Composition and Bioactive Properties of Wild Edible Mushrooms from Native Nothofagus Patagonian Forests" Foods 11, no. 21: 3516. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/foods11213516
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
