Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 357

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Antioxidant Activity of Indigenous Edible Mushrooms

Puttaraju, Nethravathi Guthalu, Venkateshaiah, Sathisha Upparahalli, Dharmesh, Shylaja Mallaiah, Urs, Shashirekha Mysore Nanjaraj, Somasundaram, Rajarathnam·2006·Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry

Abstract

The current study was undertaken to measure the antioxidant potential from water and methanolic extracts of fruiting bodies of 23 species of mushrooms naturally grown in different geographic locations of India. The antioxidant ability of each species was analyzed for the total antioxidative status, employing multimechanistic antioxidative assays such as inhibition of lipid peroxidation, determination of reducing power, and free radical scavenging ability, in addition to determination of total phenolics and identification of phenolic acids by HPLC analysis, because the phenolics are known to contribute largely to antioxidant potential. The antioxidant potential of these varieties of mushrooms was determined by summing the antioxidative activity (AOA) of each variety by varied antioxidant assays followed by determining the relative percent of AOA defined as the "antioxidant index" (AI). On the basis of the AI, the mushroom species were graded as very high, high, moderate, and low. Termitomyces heimii was identified as the best variety, which showed 100% AI with 37 mg of phenolics/g of sample, 418 units of reducing power ability (RPA)/g, and an IC50 of approximately 1.1 mg (dry weight)/mL, free radical scavenging activity (FRS) in the water extract followed by 11.2 mg of phenolics/g, 275 units of RPA/g, and an IC50 of approximately 2.7 mg (dry weight)/mL of FRS in the methanolic extract. Following T. heimii, Termitomyces mummiformis exhibited an AI of 86% within the "very high" group. Potent inhibitions of lipid peroxidation of approximately 100 and 69% was also observed in T. heimii and T. mummiformis, respectively. Water extracts ranged from 34 to 49% and methanolic extracts varied from 20 to 32% on dry weight of mushroom fruiting body. Total phenolic compounds were higher in the water extracts (2-37 mg/g) than in methanolic extract (0.7-11.2 mg/g). The AOA measured in the water extract was better than that from the methanolic extract. HPLC analysis of phenolic acids in the two mushroom species, namely, T. heimii and T. mummiformis, displaying maximum AOA potential indicated a preponderance of tannic acid, gallic acid, protocatacheuic acid, and gentisic acid. Studies thus provide the precise antioxidant status of 23 indigenous species of mushrooms, which can serve as a useful database for the selection of mushrooms for the function of preparation of mushroom-based nutraceutics.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/jf0615707

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 357

Metadata

Authors
Puttaraju, N. G., Venkateshaiah, S. U., Dharmesh, S. M., Urs, S. M. N., & Somasundaram, R.
Venue
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Published
2006-12-01
Volume
54
Issue
26
Pages
9764-9772
ISSN
  • 0021-8561 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5118
OpenAlex
W1994443443
Cited by
357
References
0
FWCI
2.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Antioxidant Activity of Indigenous Edible Mushrooms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/jf0615707
The paper
Puttaraju, N. G., Venkateshaiah, S. U., Dharmesh, S. M., Urs, S. M. N., & Somasundaram, R. (2006). Antioxidant Activity of Indigenous Edible Mushrooms. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf0615707

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.